

















\ 





















































































' 





































































. 








































■ 






. 





















'r'^ 


















\^ * 






















POLITICAL HISTORY 

OF 

NEW YORK STATE DURING THE 
PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR 

£11 
?7<C 



BY 

SIDNEY DAVID BRUMMER, A. M. 






SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

IN THE 

Faculty of Political Science 
Columbia University 



NEW YORK 
IQII 



3? 



la Exchange. 

DEC 30 1911 



>0—W w ' **% 



PREFACE 

Within the past dozen years or so, there has been a 
growing recognition that the political history of some of our 
states is worthy of investigation. That this is true of New 
York especially has been frequently observed. Until a very 
recent date, the only political history of this State deserv- 
ing the name was Hammond's; and that carried the nar- 
rative only to 1848. Since then, Alexander's three-volume 
work has been published. My study was begun before 
the announcement of Alexander's first two volumes was 
made in 1906, and it was nearly finished when his third vol- 
ume (which deals with the greater part of the period here 
covered) appeared in 1909. I have made little or no use of 
Alexander. A comparison of my attempt with his work will 
show how differently we have conceived the field. In the 
treatment of topics which belong to the general history of 
the country or the history of the national political parties, 
the aim here has been to omit so far as possible whatever 
did not relate immediately to New York State or its action; 
in other words, to avoid repeating what may be found in 
other books, such as Rhodes' History of the United States. 

The most interesting and piquant details of the politics of 
the time, I am not able to give. Until more memoirs relat- 
ing to the subject are published or correspondence of the 
leaders revealed, occurrences such as those which took place 
in Thurlow Weed's room at the Astor House * must remain 
unknown. Thus far, there is a paucity of material dealing 

1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 237. 
205] 5 



6 PREFACE [ 20 6 

with this phase of New York's history, outside of the news- 
papers. It is largely upon these sources of information, 
rather looked down upon though perhaps not with good 
reason, as Mr. James Ford Rhodes has pointed out, 1 that 
one must rely. I trust that by basing many of the statements 
made upon at least two sources of different political faith or 
of a different nature, some of the pitfalls attending the use 
of newspapers as material for history have been avoided. 
Of course, where a document is printed in full in a paper or 
book, this double reference has not been made. Care has been 
taken, by a comparison of wording, not to cite Associated 
Press dispatches from more than one paper. The Herald 
references frequently include both material furnished by the 
Associated Press and by the Herald's own special correspond- 
ent. The press of that day was not the same as now. More 
attention was given to politics ; legislative proceedings were 
reported in detail, as were those of conventions and com- 
mittees ; and important letters bearing upon politics were 
often published. From the newspapers, one can at least 
learn the outward doings in the political field of that time. 

I wish to express my gratitude to Professors William 
A. Dunning and Herbert L. Osgood for reading the manu- 
script and proofs. I am especially indebted to Professor 
Dunning. He suggested the subject and encouraged me 
while working it out, and to his assistance must be attributed 
very many corrections and improvements. 

Sidney D. Brummer. 

New York, March i, 1910. 

1 Rhodes' Historical Essays, p. 83 et seq. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I 

PAGB 

The Political Situation in New York State in i860 

Character of New York politics during the war period 17 

Factions within the Republican party 17 

Thurlow Weed 19 

How far was Weed corrupt ? 22 

The Democratic factions. The Albany Regency 24 

Tammany Hall 26 

Mozart Hall 27 

Wood's up-State allies 29 

Fragments of decomposed parties 31 

The offices in i860 . 32 

Character of the state government . ■•.... 33 

The rings in New York City 35 

Political rottenness in New York City, 1860-1865 36 

The slavery issue in the Legislature of i860 39 

The New York City railroad bills 40 

Proposed legislation against the New York Central Railroad ... 42 
The metropolitan police bill and the proposed charter amendments 

for New York City .... 46 

CHAPTER II 
New York and the Presidential Nominations of i860 

The Wood delegation to Charleston 48 

The Regency delegation 49 

The Regency wins the first stages of the contest 52 

The Regency delegation seated .... 53 

Action of the New York delegation in the Charleston convention. 54 

New York at Baltimore 56 

New York's part in the nominations of Bell and Everett 60 

Seward the choice of the Republicans of New York 62 

Greeley's activity at Chicago 63 

Bitter controversy among New York Republicans 64 

Nevertheless, New York supports Lincoln heartily 67 

207] 7 



8 CONTENTS [ 20 8 

PAGE 

CHAPTER III 
The Campaign of i860 in New York 

Prospects of a fusion electoral ticket 70 

Fernando Wood, Mozart Hall, and other prominent Democrats 

for fusion 71 

Attitude of the Bell-Everett men 73 

Obstacles to the formation of a fusion 73 

The Constitutional Union State Convention of i860 75 

The Breckinridge Democratic State Convention 76 

The Douglas Democratic State Convention • . . . 78 

Controversy over the Bell-Everett electoral candidates 80 

Attempt of the Democratic State Committees to arrange a fusion . 81 

Fusion finally consummated 83 

Democratic prospects of success weakened by the long and em- 
bittered negotiations 86 

The Republican State Convention of i860 86 

Weakness of the fusion 88 

The issues of the campaign in New York State ...» 90 

Part played by the commercial interests of New York City .... 91 
Notable array of speakers and numerous meetings of the Republi- 
cans 93 

The Wide Awakes and the Little Giants 94 

Disadvantages of the Democrats 95 

The former American vote 96 

Attempt to frighten Lincoln supporters by a commercial panic . . 96 
Results of the election. Defeat of the proposed amendment to the 

state constitution 97 

CHAPTER IV 

New York Politics at the Eve of the War 
The crisis of December, i860: measures advocated by Greeley and 

Weed respectively 99 

The majority of New York Republicans opposed to Weed's pro- 
posed compromise . . 101 

Attitude of the Democrats: fhe Pine Street meeting 101 

The Legislature of 1861 : contest in the Republican caucus ... 102 

Differences in the Republican ranks 104 

Robinson's resolutions concerning the territories 105 

Attitude of the Democrats in the Legislature during the early 

months of 1861 105 

Resolutions reported from committee in the Assembly and in the 

Senate 107 



209] CONTENTS g 

PAGE 

A Republican caucus votes down compromise 109 

The compromisers defeated in the Assembly 109 

The question of the appointment of commissioners to the Peace 

Conference at Washington . no 

Call for a Democratic state convention to save the Union .... 112 

Prominent members of the convention 114 

Contest between Tammany and Mozart 116 

Seymour's speech 117 

Speeches of Tremain, Thayer, and Tilden 119 

The resolutions adopted and the committees appointed 121 

Ineffectiveness of the convention 123 

Utterances of New York Democratic extremists: Mayor Wood, 

the Albany Argus, and Daniel E. Sickles . 123 

The great " Union-saving " meeting at Cooper Institute 126 

Wood and the Georgia muskets 126 

Rivalry between the Greeley and Weed factions 127 

Their contest in Washington over the cabinet 128 

The Greeley-Evarts senatorial contest 130 

Election of Ira Harris 134 

The two factions battle for the control of the federal patronage in 

New York 136 

Democratic opposition in February to a bill appropriating money 

for equipping the militia 139 

Tremendous change caused by the attack on Fort Sumter: action 

of the Legislature; attitude of the Democratic legislators .... 140 

Patriotic meetings throughout the State 143 

The monster meeting in New York City 144 

Patriotic stand of many Democrats 147 

Evidence that some Democrats were swept along unwillingly by 

the revolution in public sentiment 148 

CHAPTER V 

The Genesis of the Union Party in New York 

Early appearance of a partisan revival in this State 151 

Activity of the peace press 152 

The Democratic state organization refuses to accept the Republican 

invitation to unite on a Union ticket 154 

Importance of the action of the Democratic organization on this 

occasion 155 

Resolutions of the Democratic State Committee 156 



IO CONTENTS [2io 

PAGE 

The necessity of subordinating politics to the interests of the coun- 
try admitted by all parties in New York, but rejected in practice 

by the Democratic state organization 157 

The Democratic State Convention of 1861 158 

Contest between Tammany and Mozart 160 

The platform a victory for the advocates of peace 162 

The ninth resolution a great handicap to the Democrats 164 

The People's State Convention 165 

The Republican State Convention unites with the People's Con- 
vention in support of a Union ticket ... . 169 

The Union platform 169 

Partial fusion of Republicans and War Democrats on local and 

legislative nominations .... 170 

Mozart ratifies the Union state ticket; Tammany repudiates a part 

of the Democratic state platform 171 

Nevertheless, Mozart and Tammany amicably divide the local 

spoils: triumph of the ring . . 173 

Result of the election 175 

The New York City charter election of December, 1861 . . . 175 

CHAPTER VI 
The Legislative Session of 1862 

A lull in New York politics during the early part of 1862 179 

The Legislature of 1862: composition and leaders 180 

Caucus contest for the speakership 181 

Weakness of the Democratic minority . 184 

Subjects of the few partisan divisions which did occur . . . 185 

Notable absence of party spirit in the Legislature of 1862 186 

The session develops, however, important personal rivalries in 

the ranks of the majority 187 

The question of taxation 187 

The bill for harbor defence 189 

Struggle between the New York City factions transferred to the 

Legislature 190 

Nevertheless, the threatened, rupture in the ranks of the majority 

fails to develop 191 

Attitude of the Seward-Weed faction toward a renewal of the fusion. 191 

Calling of a Union legislative caucus 194 

Action of the caucus 194 

The Union legislative address and resolutions 197 

Importance of the action of New York on this occasion . . . . 200 



\ 



2i i] CONTENTS H 

PAGE 

CHAPTER VII 
The Revival of Party Politics 

Influences at work in New York to produce a revival of party 

politics 201 

Temporary eclipse of Weed; his trip to Europe 201 

Return of Weed; the effect of his reentrance into New York politics. 202 

Revival of rumors of a conservative alliance 203 

Influence of the progress of the Republican party toward abolition. 204 

New York City as a center of abolition agitation 205 

Activity of anti-abolitionists in New York City 206 

Influence of the reverses met with by the Federal armies during 

the summer of 1862 208 

Union war meetings 208 

The proposed state draft 209 

Attitude of the former Bell-Everett men and of the Democrats 

toward a Union ticket 210 

The Constitutional Union State Convention of 1862 ..... 212 

The Democratic State Convention of 1862 213 

Nomination of Seymour. His speech 215 

The platform 217 

Strength of the ticket 217 

The Republican-Union Convention of 1862 218 

Wadsworth favored by the radicals ... 218 

Weed supports Dix and a conservative platform 220 

Morgan, Fenton, and Cook 221 

Tremain's speech 222 

Speeches of Johnson, Raymond, and Noyes 224 

A victory for the radical wing 224 

CHAPTER VIII 

The Triumph of the Opposition 

Justification of a detailed account of the campaign in New York 

State in 1862 227 

The importance of the election in New York to the country as a 

whole emphasized by both parties 227 

The Democrats accused of disloyalty . . 228 

The past utterances of Seymour and other New York Democratic 

leaders used against their party 230 

Charge that Seymour if elected governor would not cooperate with 

the national administration in carrying on the war 232 



12 CONTENTS [212 

PACK 

The necessity of laying aside party as an issue of the campaign . . 233 

Seymour denies the charges of disloyalty 235 

The Democrats accuse their adversaries of being the real enemies 

of the national administration 236 

Bitterness of the canvass 237 

Abolition as an issue in New York 238 

Arbitrary proceedings of the national administration as an issue . 240 

Corruption and inefficiency at Washington as issues 242 

Answer of the Republican-Unionists to the charges of corruption 

and inefficiency on the part of the national administration . . . 243 

Weakness of the Democratic attacks on the failures to end the war. 244 

Wadsworth's relations to McClellan 245 

Other issues 247 

Notable speakers during the campaign 247 

Importance of the contests for congress and for the state legislature. 247 

Effect of the state enrolment on the election 248 

Result of the election 249 

Examination of the causes of Wadsworth's defeat 249 

Effect of the Democratic victory . 254 

CHAPTER IX 
The Partisan Revival in the Legislature 

Seymour's opportunity as governor in 1863 255 

His inaugural speech 257 

His annual message of 1863 258 

Attempt to remove the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. 261 

The tie in the Assembly . 264 

Exciting and disorderly contest for the speakership 265 

Election of Callicot 269 

Democratic charge of a corrupt bargain leads to a renewal of par- 
tisan battles over Callicot . . . 270 

The election of a United States senator. Result of the Union 

caucus 271 

The Democratic nomination 273 

Morgan's election a victory for the conservative wing of the 

Union party . . . 273 

Partisan debates in the Legislature of 1863 274 

Debates on the McClellan resolutions 275 

Debates on the administration's emancipation policy 276 

The question of the payment of the interest on the state debt in 

specie or greenbacks . 277 



213] CONTENTS 13 

PAGK 

The bill authorizing state banks to become national banks .... 277 

The bill to permit those in the federal military service to vote . . . 278 

Seymour's special message . . 280 

Passage of the bill by the two houses, and its veto by the Governor. 282 
Comparative weakness of the peace faction among the Democratic 

legislators of New York 283 

The Democratic legislative address • . 285 

Criticism of the address 287 

The Union legislative address . 288 



CHAPTER X 

Movements within the Unionist Ranks 

The Weed faction and the Democrats 290 

Retirement of Weed from the Albany Evening Journal 291 

Warfare between Weed and his radical adversaries 292 

John Van Buren and James T. Brady 295 

Organization of the Loyal Union League 295 

The Loyal National League 297 

The Madison Square demonstration 298 

Political significance of the loyal league movement 300 

State conventions of the loyal leagues . 301 

CHAPTER XI 
Copperheadism in New York 

Attitude of the Democrats of New York toward conscription . . • 303 

Mozart Hall and Fernando Wood declare against the act . ... 304 

Wood's mass meeting favors peace and opposes conscription . . 306 

Indignation of New York Democrats at the Vallandigham arrest 308 

Vallandigham meetings of protest at Albany, Buffalo, and Brooklyn. 309 

The New York City meeting 311 

Divisions in the New York Democracy on the question of support- 
ing the prosecution of the war 315 

Wood's mass state convention for peace and reunion 316 

CHAPTER XII 

Seymour on Trial 

The draft riot 320 

Governor Seymour's actions and measures on this occasion . . . 321 



H 



CONTENTS 



Warm controversy among the metropolitan newspapers over the 

riot 323 

The draft in the rest of the State . . -?"-? 

The question of whether the draft would be enforced in New Yo .. 

City 324 

Action of Democratic common councils and boards of supervisors. 325 

Seymour's correspondence with Lincoln about the draft ... . 327 

Criticism of Seymour's letters 329 

Correspondence between Dix and Seymour 335 

Seymour's proclamation of August 18th 336 

The Union State Convention of 1863 337 

The platform 338 

The new Union State Committee 339 

The Democratic State Convention of 1863 340 

Seymour's address to the convention 340 

The resolutions and nominations 342 

Issues of the campaign -44 

General substitution of the designation " Union " for the old party 

name "Republican" 348 

Prominent speakers during the campaign 349 

Factors effecting the result 350 

Furloughs for the soldiers 351 

Result of the election 352 

The Tammany and Mozart machines defeated in the New York 

City charter election 353 

CHAPTER XIII 

The Legislative Session of 1864 

Governor Seymour's annual message of 1864 355 

Criticism of the message 358 

Seymour's position compared with that of the Woods 359 

Character and composition of the Legislature of 1864 359 

Constitutional amendment and law to enable soldiers to vote . . . 360 

Party debates over the appropriation for the militia 361 

Question of legalizing bounty debts 362 

National versus state banks 363 

Interest on the state debt 366 

The metropolitan police commission bill 368 

Resolution in favor of an amendment to the federal constitution 

prohibiting slavery 368 



2I3 ] CONTENTS I5 

PAGE 

CHAPTER XIV 
New York and the Presidential Nominations of 1864 

mocratic State Convention of February, 1864, to elect 

delegates to the national convention 371 

Proposed address and declaration of principles of Tammany Hall . 373 
Action of the Unionists of New York on the question of endorsing 

Lincoln for a renomination 374 

Activity of those opposed to Lincoln 376 

New York at the Cleveland convention 378 

The Union State Convention of May, 1864, to elect delegates to 

the national convention 379 

The State Committee of War Democrats 380 

New York's part in the National Union Convention at Baltimore. 381 

Controversy among New York Unionists after the convention . 384 

Weed's relations with Lincoln 389 

The, United States assistant treasurership at New York City . . . 392 

We a's joy at Chase's resignation 393 

The New York custom-house captured by the Weed men .... 394 

The Union State Convention of September, 1864 395 

Superior strength of the anti-Weed men in the convention .... 397 
Activity of the peace advocates among New York Democrats dur- 
ing the summer of 1864 397 

The mass peace convention 399 

Movement in New York in behalf of McClellan 401 

New York at the National Democratic Convention of 1864 .... 403 

CHAPTER XV 
The Defeat of the Peace Party 

Danger of a collision between the federal government and the state 

administration of New York . 407 

The seizure of the New York World and of the New York Journal 

of Commerce ; action of Seymour ... ... 408 

Refusal of the Grand Jury to indict the military officers. Further 

action of Seymour and of Judge Russel 409 

Seymour and the call for hundred days men 410 

His order for the increase of the militia. John A. Green 412 

Renewal of friction between the national and state administrations 

over the draft 413 

The Democratic State Convention of September, 1864 414 

Renomination of Seymour 417 



1 6 CONTENTS [216 

PAGE 

Reception of the presidential nominations in New York State - . 419 

Effect of the victories of the army and navy 423 

The War Democrats of New York 423 

Other features of the campaign in New York . . 424 

Issues of the canvass in this State 425 

Threats of violence 432 

The alleged frauds in the collection of the soldiers' votes 432 

Orders issued by General Dix before the election; Seymour's 

proclamation 436 

Exciting incidents at the close of the campaign 438 

Result of the election 439 

Conclusion 442 



CHAPTER I 

The Political Situation in New York in i860 

In the history of American political parties, the years 
from 1852 to 1868 form a transition period, a time of dis- 
integration and instability, new alignment and reorganiza- 
tion. The causes which produced these results in the coun- 
try generally were active in New York State ; and as a result, 
New York politics, always complicated, were during these 
years even more tangled than usual. On the eve of the Civil 
War, each of the great parties in this State was torn by 
rival factions more or less defined. In addition, there were 
the various unattached fragments of former political or- 
ganizations then but recently shattered. So it was that 
tremendous as the effects of the war were, it produced only 
a momentary unity among the many jarring elements pres- 
ent at its outbreak; and consequently, factional struggles 
formed the main characteristic of party politics in New 
York State during the war. Where unanimity might rea- 
sonably have been expected, we not only have two rival 
parties, one composed of supporters of the national admin- 
istration and the other of those hostile to it, but each of these 
organizations partly paralyzed by continual struggles within. 

The Republican Party in i860 was of too recent birth to 
have crystallized entirely. Composed of heterogeneous ele- 
ments, of which the most important, the former Whigs and 
the former Free-soil Democrats, had no bond but a common 
attitude on the slavery question and had recently been ac- 
tively opposed on other issues, the resulting discord was 
especially prominent in New York. That portion of the 

2171 17 



ig NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 i8 

party which was of Whig antecedents looked upon William 
H. Seward as their leader, but was actively generated by 
Thurlow Weed, aided by Henry J. Raymond. As is well 
known, Weed was devoted to Seward's advancement. On 
the other hand, Seward once remarked, " Weed is Seward, 
and Seward is Weed ; each approves what the other says or 
does " j 1 and as far as we have any evidence, this statement 
was true. The most prominent organs of this faction were 
Weed's paper, the Albany Evening Journal, and Raymond's 
New York Times. The anti-Seward wing, as the oppo- 
nents of Weed were often denominated in the press, was for 
the most part made up of the former Free-soil Democratic 
element, 2 plus Horace Greeley. The other leading men of 
this faction were Lieutenant-Governor Campbell, a man 
of ability, integrity, and independence, who appears to 
have been a serious obstacle to the execution of some of 
Weed's plans ; 3 David Dudley Field, one of New York's 
most eminent lawyers ; George Opdyke, later mayor of New 
York City; and William Cullen Bryant, poet and editor. 
All of these four men were former Barnburners, opposed 
to corruption, and radicals on the slavery question. The 
opponents of Weed had two powerful organs in Greeley's 

'"Diary of Gideon Welles," Atlantic Monthly, April, 1900, p. 482. 
Weed practically said the same (Weed, Autobiography, pp. 422-3). 

2 This statement, based partly on an examination of the names of the 
leading men opposed to Weed and partly upon the scattered character- 
izationsof newspaper writers, is confirmed by Godwin s Bryant , ii, p. 142. 

3 Herald, Jan. 14, 26, March 29, i860; Tribune, Jan. 5, 1863. Camp- 
bell's uprightness was alluded to from time to time by the correspond- 
ents of both the Herald and the Tribune', while the Argus, politically 
opposed to him, said upon his retirement: " Campbell's integrity in 
public life is something more than a mere passive virtue. He has re- 
sisted wrong not only with energy and courage, but with forecast and 
judgment. He has not awaited the approaches of public corruption; 
but he has gone forth armed against it, to defeat it ere it grew strong " 
{Argus, Jan. 1, 1863). 



219] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 IO , 

Tribune and Bryant's Post. But they lacked a general equal 
in political ability to Weed, and it was their misfortune to 
be led by so poor a politician as Greeley. 

The existence of this faction, however, served to temper 
the sway of Weed. Up to i860, he had kept firm control 
over his party. He was another Warwick, making sena- 
tors, governors, and state officers; and in the three decades 
previous to that year, but three state conventions refused to 
follow his lead. 1 Speakers of the assembly had been wont 
to consult him when forming their committees. 2 Those 
who aspired to office sought his influence. 3 But begin- 
ning about i860, the anti-Weed men raised their heads. In 
that year, they had possession of some of the higher state 
offices, and as ex-officio members of the Canal Board 4 had 
control of some of the most important state patronage. 5 In 
the state Senate of i860, the Weed slate for harbor-masters 
met with a setback, two of the nominations being rejected 
at first because of the defection of seven Republican mem- 
bers and the casting vote of the Lieutenant-Governor; and 
they were confirmed later only because of the repentance of 
three of the rebels and the aid of some of the Democrats. 6 

1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 258. 

2 Letter of Weed to the editors of the Albany Argus, April 10, 1863. 

3 Weed, Autobiography, p. 584. 

4 The canal board consisted of the lieutenant-governor, the secretary 
of state, the controller, the state treasurer, the attorney-general, the 
state engineer and surveyor, and three canal commissioners. 

5 Herald, March q, May 7, i860. This was confirmed by the Argus 
of Jan. 16, i86r, which said that Bruce would be the " sole representa- 
tive of Seward Whig Republicanism in the Canal Board." An idea of 
the extent of this patronage may be gained by a list of appointments 
made in 1864; this included 36 collectors, 10 inspectors and measurers, 
6 weighmasters, 5 superintendents for the Erie Canal, 7 superintend- 
ents for the other canals. Tribune, Jan. 28, 1864. 

6 Herald, Feb. 3, 9, 16, March 29; Argus, Feb. 1, 9, 16; Tribune, 
Feb. 9. 



j NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 20 

Then came the Chicago convention, accompanied by a ser- 
ious revolt against Weed and ending in disaster for him. 
At the beginning of the war, Weed's influence had passed 
its zenith. An examination of a list of names of those 
raised to high office, who Weed in after years declared had 
been upon his slate, shows that his power in that direction 
suffered a great decline with the beginning of the period 
here treated; 1 and further evidences of this will appear in 
the course of the narrative. In fact, the political history 
here set forth is largely concerned with the active, bitter, and 
more or less successful attempt to overthrow him. 

What was the nature of Weed's power? He was a man 
who never spoke in public, 2 content to distribute the spoils 
without taking office for himself, a natural politician, evi- 
dently not overscrupulous, but of great magnetism in per- 
sonal contact. In i860, he impressed Samuel Bowles of 
the Springfield Republican, as " one of the most remarkable 
men of our time— one whom I had rather have had such an 
interview with than with any president of our day and gen- 
eration." 3 Weed's genius for organization, which even an 
enemy * had to admit, his usually sure judgment in regard 
to men and measures, and his " mystery and secretiveness 
that neither wine nor passion ever betrayed," 5 all contributed 
to make him the greatest political strategist of his day. 
Unlike in these respects, both Greeley and Weed had found 
in the newspaper office a school wherein each acquired a 
knowledge of affairs, ability to think, and a capacity to 
write clear, incisive, English; and Weed's rise was perhaps 

' Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 473- 
' Weed, Autobiography, p. 172. 
s Merriam's Life of Bowles, i. p. 302. 

'Open letter of Samuel Wilkeson. assailing Weed, printed in the 
Tribune, April 1, 1861. 
i Ibid. 



22 1 ] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 21 

the more wonderful in that his early poverty and lack of 
facilities for obtaining an education were even greater than 
Greeley's. 1 It was because of this training that Weed was 
able to create the very great influence which the Albany 
Evening Journal exercised over the up-state press, 2 forming 
an important element in his power. 

Then too, in choosing candidates, Weed paid such shrewd 
regard to availability and party strength that, once estab- 
lished, he had retained the prerogative of slate-making for 
years. Weed, like feebler bosses of later times, knew how to 
work secretly with his nominal opponents. He himself has 
left an account of one of his earliest successes in the way 
of obtaining desired legislation in the face of great ob- 
stacles, from which it appears that the bill went through 
because of the close personal and social relations which he 
held with the legislators irrespective of party. 3 Dean Rich- 
mond, the leading Democratic politician, was Weed's warm 
friend. 4 At an annual series of dinners, Weed entertained 

'Weed, Autobiography, pp. i, 2. 

2 " Diary of Gideon Welles," Atlantic Month/y, Sept., igoo, p. 357. 

3 'Weed, Autobiography . pp. 105, 106. Greeley understood that the Dem- 
ocratic managers also were to get something in case Weed's plan of 
raising campaign funds out of railroad grants went through, and pointed 
to the large support given by the Democrats in the Legislature of i860 
to the bills as evidence of this (Tribune, Sept. 30, 1861). During the 
period here treated, there are other traces of secret dealings between 
Weed and the Democrats. There seems to be some evidence that 
Weed worked with Dean Richmond to protect the New York Central 
Railroad. He was accused of conspiring with the New York Central 
managers to secure the repeal of the tolls upon railroads, of making 
money through operations in New York Central stock, of accepting 
from the road a commission upon passengers sent over the line from 
the emigrant depot in New York City, and of sharing in the profits of 
the printing patronage of the Central — all this by Wilkeson, who had 
once been Weed's business associate. (Letter of Wilkeson in the 
Tribune, April 1, 1861). 

* Weed, Autobiography, p. 492. 



22 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 22 2 

the members of the legislature, regardless of party, 1 and he 
boasted that he was personally acquainted with each and 
every member of that body for over thirty years. 2 

Weed's enemies accused him of corruption. He him- 
self admitted that there had " scarcely been a session of the 
Legislature for more than a quarter of a century out of 
which, if we had chosen to do so, a large amount of money 
could not have been made." 3 But he also said, " During 
the more than thirty years that we have been connected with 
this Journal ... no pecuniary consideration — no hope of 
favor or reward — has tempted us to support a measure 
which did not commend itself to our judgment and con- 
science, or to oppose a meritorious one." 4 Again, we find 
Weed privately unburdening himself to Seward with refer- 
ence to the charges made by Mr. Van Wyke in the House of 
Representatives : 5 

It is hard to be abused for doing right. I chartered the 
vessels that took the first troops to Washington, leaving Grin- 
nell and Comstock to fix the charter, and without a thought of 
interest, or receiving the value of a cigar. I helped Smith, 
of Ulster, to get a powder order without the thought of a 
commission or even thanks, but I did not expect abuse ! 8 

Frequent as these accusations against Weed were, we must 
at least say that in the absence of better evidence, his specific 
and emphatic denials are of great weight in clearing him 
in this respect. But he acknowledged that " there have been 

1 Herald, Feb. 29. i860; Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 232. 

2 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 502. 

3 Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 27, 1860. 'Ibid. 

5 Tribune, Feb. 8, 1862. 

6 Letter of Weed to Seward in F. W. Seward's Seward at Washing- 
ton, iii, p. 75. 



223] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 23 

legislative measures, right in themselves, and promotive 
of the general welfare, in which we have had, in common 
with other citizens, ultimate or prospective interests. In 
this category belong New York city railroads." l Thus, Mr. 
Weed was to some extent a commercialist in politics. 

Of the truth of another variety of accusations, there can 
be little doubt. This was that Weed collected contributions 
for the party treasury from those desirous of furthering or 
opposing particular legislation. To the allegation that the 
notorious city railroad bills had been passed through an 
agreement between Weed and the lobby by which the latter 
were to deliver to Weed the funds for the presidential cam- 
paign, 2 Weed confessed : 

Obnoxious as the admission is to a just sense of right and to a 
better condition of political ethics, we stand so far " im- 
peached ". We would have preferred not to disclose to public 
view the financial history of political life. . . . Public men 
know much of what " the rest of mankind " are ignorant. We 
suppose it is generally understood that party organizations cost 
money and that presidential elections especially are expensive. 
... It has been our duty and task for nearly forty years to 
raise money for elections. . . . Believing that railroads were 
essential to the City of New York, and that legislative grants 
for them would be obtained, we conceived and attempted to 
carry out the idea of making these grants available politically. 3 

1 Albany Evening Journal, August 27, i860. 

'This charge was made by Greeley's counsel, J. L. Williams, in his 
opening speech for the defense in the Littlejohn libel suit (printed in 
the Tribune, Sept. 16, 1861). 

'Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 21, 1861. Greeley, however, said 
that "neither the Democratic nor the Republican party treasury re- 
ceived one dollar from this source," and that the pretext was only a 
"lure for the votes of political zealots" (Tribune, Sept. 30, 1861). 
The Albany Statesman (anti-Weed Republican) published the follow- 
ing, which the editor said was written by a Republican state senator: 



24 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [224 

If, however. Weed was like party managers of all ages in 
that the corner-stone of his power lay in the patronage, if 
he merely anticipated the modern boss in his manipulation 
of legislation for party purposes, there yet remained some- 
thing in the personal qualities which have been dwelt upon 
above, which distinguished him from the ordinary American 
politician. 

The Republicans were far more united in i860 than were 
their adversaries. The factional struggles within the Demo- 
cratic ranks in New York State were at this time deep- 
seated, of some years' existence, and apparently incurable. 1 
In the case of the Republicans, lines of cleavage were poten- 
tial rather than actually present; while three rival Demo- 
cratic forces, definitely organized, contended with one an- 
other, or two in alliance against a third ; and bolts had 
become the regular order of the day. 

First, there was the regular state organization, led by the 
Albany Regency, a degenerate descendant of the famous 
clique of Van Buren and Marcy. Its power lay wholly in 
the up-state districts as distinguished from New York City, 
and seems to have been partly due to an intimate alliance 
with what was probably the most important corporation of 
the State, the New York Central Railroad. The rule of the 
Regency was hated by many. The accusations against this 
group, of trickery, treachery, playing with loaded dice, and 

" I know I voted for bills last winter that my conscience did not ap- 
prove, . . . But in no case did I vote for a questionable bill, unless 
solicited to do so by party leaders, upon the plea that those to be bene- 
fited by such bills would contribute to the fund of the Republican State 
Committee, ... I can name more than one instance in which Mr. 
Weed has solicited me to vote for bills for such reasons" (Quoted by 
the Argus, Aug. 21, i860). For an interesting description of Weed's 
methods, see a letter of Lieutenant-Governor Campbell to Salmon P. 
Chase, quoted in Hart's Chase, pp. 185-87. 
1 For the origin of these divisions, see Bancroft's Seward, i, p. 135, 368. 



225] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 25 

selling their power, were common from Democrats as well 
as from Republicans. The principal Regency leader in i860 
was Dean Richmond, vice-president of the New York Cen- 
tral Railroad and chairman of the Democratic State Com- 
mittee. A correspondent described him as a thick-set, cor- 
pulent man, with a large, red, and Dutch-looking face, and 
a very prominent nose. 1 Richmond, like Thurlow Weed, 
had had no educational advantages in early life and was 
self-made. He, too, was a shrewd, practical politician who 
refused office and never spoke in public. 2 Indeed, he was 
said to have been unable to express himself grammatically 
in private conversation. 3 More than one noted his liberal 
use of profanity. Weed and Richmond evidently looked 
upon each other in a sympathetic light ; for in i860 Weed 
rendered this tribute to his rival and incidentally to him- 
self: "The secret of his [Richmond's] power, next to his 
intuitive knowledge, consists in his prominent disinterested- 
ness . . . through more than thirty annual campaigns, 
... he has neither asked nor accepted anything in re- 
turn. Such patriotism, coupled with the almost unerring 
wisdom of his counsels, gives him great, controlling, and 
permanent power." 4 Others who made up the more or less 
shadowy body known as the Regency were Erastus Corn- 
ing, a wealthy iron manufacturer and the president of the 
New York Central; Peter Cagger, a lawyer and the sec- 
retary of the Democratic State Committee; William Cassidy, 
editor of the Regency organ, the Albany Atlas and Argus, 

1 Herald, Feb. 25, i860. A description in the World, June 20, i860, 
agrees with the particulars given above. 

''Herald, Nov. 24, i860; Tribune, Aug. 20, 1864. 

s New York World, June 20, i860. 

* Albany Evening Journal, June 20, i860. It can be easily seen from 
Weed's Autobiography that he prided himself on the possession of the 
same merits which he praises in Richmond. 



2 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [226 

and a brother-in-law of Cagger; and ex-Governor Horatio 
Seymour. 

Then there was Tammany Hall, the regular local Demo- 
cratic organization in New York City, yet, because of its 
relative weight and its jealousy of the Regency, deserving at 
that time to be reckoned as a second faction within the 
Democratic party. Tammany, nevertheless, was not then 
the power that it once had been or that it was to be in the 
future. At the beginning of i860 its principal leader and 
grand sachem was Postmaster Isaac V. Fowler, whom 
even the Tribune could speak of as " personally popular 
among all parties as a genial, gentlemanly, and liberal- 
minded man." * Educated at Columbia College and for 
years a leading lawyer and a prominent member of the 
" soft-shell " Democracy, he was appointed postmaster in 
1853; but in May, i860, a defalcation of over $150,000 on 
his part was detected, and he absconded. 2 After Fowler's 
fall, the control of the organization was obtained by such 
spoilsmen as Purdy, Genet, and Boole, who so far as political 
capacity was concerned were far inferior to the triumvirate 
of Fowler, Fernando Wood, and Daniel E. Sickles, which 
had but a few years before ruled Tammany. 3 In i860 and 
the years succeeding Tammany had no " boss," but was 
distracted by struggles between those connected with a cor- 
rupt aldermanic ring and those not having that lucrative 
advantage. 4 William M. Tweed, George Barnard, and 

1 Tribune, May 15, i860. * Herald, May 15, i860. 

3 Elijah F. Purdy was a member of the Board of Supervisors; Henry 
W. Genet was an alderman, the county clerk, and the controller of the 
street department; for Boole, infra. During the latter years here 
dealt with, however, Tweed and Sweeney seem to have been the great- 
est powers in Tammany. 

4 Tribune, Oct. 6, 1862. Article dealing with the struggle between 
the Genet and Boole factions. 



227] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 2 J 

Peter B. Sweeney were already becoming prominent in its 
councils. At the end of the period here considered, Tweed 
was president of the Board of Supervisors, deputy street 
cleaning commissioner, referee for Judge Barnard, member 
of the county volunteering committee, commissioner for 
opening streets, contractor for supplying furniture to the 
City, fire commissioner, and chairman of the Tammany 
Hall General Committee. 1 

While some of the patronage in the metropolis was con- 
trolled by the Republicans, the City Hall in i860 was pos- 
sessed by Tammany's most bitter opponent, Mozart Hall. 
This third Democratic power, against which the other two 
were often found in alliance, was the creation and the 
creature of Fernando Wood, the most infamous of New York 
City's mayors — unless this distinction belongs to Oakley Hall. 
Wood was born in Philadelphia. Eventually he came to 
New York and engaged in various pursuits — keeping a wine 
and cigar shop, then becoming an auctioneer, then a ship- 
chandler, and later a grocer. 2 Devoting himself largely 
to politics, he was elected to Congress in 1840, and after 
rising so far in Know Nothing circles as to have been a 
candidate for that party's mayoralty nomination, he became 
a leading member of Tammany. 3 Nominated for mayor 
on the Democratic ticket in 1850, he was defeated ; but in 
1854 and again in 1856, he was successful. After his scan- 
dalous attempt to control the police, 4 Wood was defeated for 
a second re-election. Then, unable to rule Tammany, he 
set up an organization of his own, Mozart Hall, of which 

1 Tribune, Jan. 9, 1864. 

*Longworth's New York Directory, 1832-1840 inclusive. 
' Tribune, Nov. I, 1862; Myers' History of Tammany Hall, p. 179. 
*See Wilson's Memorial History of the City of New York, iii, pp. 
456 7- 



2 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [228 

he was in our present-day sense the boss ; a and in the three- 
cornered contest of 1859 Wood was again chosen mayor. 
By the outbreak of the war, he was a past master of 
practical politics in the worst meaning- of the term. 2 Able, 
energetic, ambitious, and unscrupulous, tall, handsome, and 
of pleasing manners, Fernando Wood built up Mozart Hall 
until it had in a few years become a formidable rival of 
Tammany. In this, he was assisted by his brother Ben- 
jamin, who edited the Daily News and at the same time 
carried on an extensive lottery business. Included in Mo- 
zart's following seems to have been a large number of Irish, 
the foreign born generally, and lastly, the disreputable 
class. 3 It was not merely Wood's official action in his vio- 
lent effort to secure the police force that aligned in opposi- 
tion to him the best elements of the city, and practically 
the entire metropolitan press other than the Herald and his 
brother's paper. 4 It was alleged that in his earlier days 
Wood had swindled his brother-in-law, one Marvin, and 
that when indicted for felony, he escaped through the statute 
of limitations. Moral proof of his guilt was seen by his 
opponents in the fact that judgment against him was ren- 
dered in a civil suit and confirmed on appeal. 5 Of Wood's 

1 1 have not come across any use during the period here treated of the 
word "boss" in a political sense. Breen, Thirty Years of New York 
Politics, p. 31, confirms this observation, saying that the term was first 
so applied when the Tweed ring was at the height of its power. 

2 Myers' History of Tammany Hall, pp. 179, 209. 

'Letter cf Samuel J. Tilden, written in December, 1859, saying that 
Wood "had gained the lower stratum of the Irish, combined with 
many special interests, and at last the aid of jobbing Republicans" 
(Tilden's Letters, i, pp. 126-128). See also Tribune, Jan. 4, i860; 
Myers' History of Tammany Hall, pp. 179, 330. 

4 Extract from the Sunday Atlas, quoted in the Tribune, Dec. 2, 
1861. At that time, the News had been suppressed, so that the Herald 
alone supported Wood for re-election. 

6 Tribune, Nov. 1, 1862. 



229J POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 29 

last administration of the city government, it is enough to 
mention here a letter signed by three successive foremen of 
grand juries, wherein permission was requested of the dis- 
trict attorney for the publication of evidence taken before 
those bodies, tending to prove that before Wood as mayor 
would approve of the valuable street cleaning contract, it 
was an indispensable condition that one quarter of the con- 
tract should be given to his brother Benjamin, and that the 
latter was the owner of one-fourth of the then existing con- 
tract. According to the district attorney's reply, confirming 
these assertions and appending the evidence, the contract 
was awarded at the rate of $279,000 a year although a re- 
sponsible person bid $84,000 less. 1 

Wood had up-state allies. The schism in the Democratic 
party in New York State began in 1848; healed in the fol- 
lowing year, the breach was again opened in 1853, an< ^ re- 
mained so until 1856. At the state convention of 1859, 
when delegates to the forthcoming National Democratic 
Convention were chosen, the climax came. Wood having 
tried by the aid of a select Mozart crowd to get control 
of the convention by a trick and by violence, the dele- 
gates withdrew from the hall, and later proceeded to or- 
ganize. In this latter or " regular " convention, all but two 
delegates eventually participated. But Wood, with the aid 
of some up-state politicians, mostly former " hard-shells " 
who hated the rule of the Regency, set up a rival conven- 

1 Letter signed by Messrs. Bailey, Reading, and Cooper to Nelson J. 
Waterbury, District Attorney, and reply of Waterbury, printed in the 
Tribune, Nov. 30, 1861. Waterbury was a prominent member of Tam- 
many, and the correspondence together with the publication of the evi- 
dence on the eve of the mayoralty election was a partisan move. Never- 
theless, in connection with other parts of Wood's record, the matter 
seems to incriminate Wood strongly. For other details of Wood's 
trickery in local politics, see Breen's Thirty Years of New York Poli- 
tics, pp. 79 81. 



30 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [230 

tion. 1 At the opening of the year i860, the great question 
in the politics of the State was, would the Charleston con- 
vention seat in whole or in part Wood's contesting dele-* 
gates. Wood had intimate connections with prominent 
Southern leaders and called his Democracy national, while 
most of the Regency leaders and the greater part of their 
followers were ex-barnburners 2 and favorable to Douglas. 
Moreover, Wood had recently been chosen mayor of New 
York City in opposition to Havemeyer, a " soft " ; and in 
the selection of delegates, he had adopted the more popular 
plan of elections by congressional districts. 3 

Yet the organ of the Regency persisted in belittling the 
Wood movement, and spoke of the " bolting delegations 
being appointed under Fernando Wood's dictation by little 
knots of disorganizes." It insisted that there was " really 
no contest in question, except what originated in ruffianism," 
and that the Democrats of New York State must be per- 
mitted to manage their own organization. It denounced 
from day to day the Wood delegation as " bogus ", and as- 

1 Argus, Jan. 11, i860. This, of course, gives the Regency's side of 
the affair; but it is confirmed by Andrew D. White's Autobiography , i, 
p. 59; also by the facts that nearly all the delegates went over to the regu- 
lar convention and that Daniel S. Dickinson — no friend of the Regency 
— denounced the attempt of Wood. The other side of the story is given 
in a speech of Thomas G. Alvord before the committee on contested 
seats at Charleston (Argus, May 1, i860, quoting the Charleston 
Courier) . 

2 Tribune, Aug. 9, i860. 

3 Herald, Jan. 16, i860; Argus, Jan. 11, i860. That the district sys- 
tem was far more popular was shown by extracts from Democratic 
papers throughout the State, published in the Argus during January, 
i860. These, while deprecating any movement toward a double dele- 
gation, distinctly stated that they favored the district system. With 
one exception (1852), however, delegates to national Democratic con- 
ventions had been chosen in New York by state conventions (Argus, 
Jan. 17, i860). 



231] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 $1 

serted that outside of New York City, there were not five 
hundred men engaged in the Wood movement. 1 One must 
note, however, that by no means all the " hards " went over 
to Wood. The latter himself had been a " soft " in 1853. 
Accordingly, the Regency organ claimed that the attempts 
to represent the old division between " hards " and " softs " 
as still continuing in i860 were made for mischievous pur- 
poses. 2 But even if this contention was true, hatred of the 
Regency upon the part of the former " hards " still ex- 
isted, and was the connecting line between the two factional 
struggles. Thus, the animosities within the New York 
Democracy were partly due to jealousy among the leaders 
and greed for the offices, and partly an outgrowth of the 
old divisions between " hards " and " softs ". 

There were also then in New York State various unat- 
tached political odds and ends. In the previous year, the 
American party, with what was called a balance-of-power 
ticket or one composed of candidates selected from those 
of the two principal parties, had actually carried the State, 
and the recentness of this success caused some designing 
politicians to look to these fragments as a lever for personal 
advantage. 3 At the beginning of i860 there still existed in 
New York City a Whig General Committee. This met and 
drew up an address in favor of the organization of the 
Whigs throughout the State; 4 but as the address itself con- 

1 Argus, Jan. 11, 24, Feb. 8, 9, 22, 27. From day to day it published 
letters stating that the Wood county conventions were so poorly at- 
tended as to be farcical; e. g., Jan. 17, 24, 25, 30, Feb. 7. Per contra, 
the Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 10, said that the Albany district con- 
vention was very fully attended. 

2 Argus, Jan. n, i860. 

3 Privately circulated call, signed by Erastus Brooks and four others, 
committee, dated Jan. 28, i860, printed in the Herald, Feb. 15. 

* Herald, Jan. 19. 



32 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [232 

fessed, the party had slumbered for the past few years and 
its organization was nearly destroyed. The remnant of the 
American party showed more vitality, especially in con- 
nection with the movement which resulted in the nomination 
of Bell and Everett. 

At the beginning of i860, the Republicans had control of 
most of the state patronage through their possession of the 
gubernatorial chair and of three of the five most important 
state offices; they likewise had a two-thirds majority in 
both branches of the legislature, 1 both the United States 
senators, and a majority of the congressional delegation. 
The national patronage was still in the hands of the Demo- 
crats. The opposition to the Regency in the up-state coun- 
ties was too weak to render it doubtful that the followers 
of the Regency held the federal offices in the greater part 
of the State. 

In New York City, the much-prized collectorship was 
occupied by Augustus Schell, who was a " hard ", yet ap- 
parently not acting at this time with Wood. 2 The latter, 
elected on the Mozart or National Democratic ticket in op- 
position to Havemeyer on the Tammany and Opdyke on 
the Republican ticket, was mayor. His power over the city 
patronage, however, was checked by a hostile common coun- 
cil which again and again rejected his nominations ; 3 the 
heads of the street cleaning and city inspector's departments, 
under which lay the bulk of the municipal spoils, had yet a 

1 Argus, Jan. 2; Herald, Jan. 1. The Assembly contained 90 Re- 
publicans, 37 Democrats, /and 1 Independent. De Witt C. Littlejohn 
was elected speaker with no opposition in his own party, receiving 89 
votes to 30 for Theophilus C. Callicot (Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 
3). The Senate consisted of 23 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 

1 Schell removed a custom-house official for not resigning his place 
as a Wood delegate to Charleston {Tribune, Mar. 19). 

' Tribune, Jan. 2, 25; Herald, Feb. 4, Mar. 1, 17, April io. 



233 J POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 33 

year of office, and they, as well as other heads of depart- 
ments except the controller and the corporation counsel, 
both of whom were elected, were irremovable except with 
the consent of the board of alderman and for cause ; 1 the 
police were wholly without the mayor's power and were 
governed by a metropolitan police board ; finally, the board 
of supervisors, a bi-partisan body, exercised legislative and 
executive functions over county matters. 2 Wood himself 
said in his annual message of i860: "Under the present 
laws, it makes little difference who occupies the mayoralty. 
That functionary is but a clerk. . . ." 3 Attempts at re- 
form were made. A charter amendment, which was con- 
sidered in the legislature, provided for centralizing power 
in the mayor, the controller, and the corporation counsel, 
and for depriving the aldermen of the right to confirm or 
reject nominations; but the aldermen successfully fought 
the proposition. 4 Thus, the struggle of Wood against Tam- 
many and the Regency was an up-hill one. 

The state government was already notorious for its 
vicious features. The Legislature of i860 gained an unen- 

1 " By his [the mayor's] own authority, he cannot remove any per- 
son holding office under the city government, except a few clerks in 
his own office." — Wood's annual message, Herald, Feb. 1, i860. A 
decision of the state Supreme Court implied that it was within the dis- 
cretion of the mayor and the aldermen to decide what was cause for re- 
moval for all heads of departments save the two elective ones (Herald, 
June 16, i860). But this decision did not increase the mayor's power 
when he was confronted with a hostile board of aldermen. 

2 The supervisors expended about one-third of the city budget ( Tribune, 
Jan. 2, i860). 

3 Annual message of Wood, printed in the Herald, Feb. 1, i860. 
Mayors Opdyke and Gunther, the immediate successors of Wood, made 
similar complaints. 

* Infra, p. 46. 



34 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [234 

viable reputation because of the jobs passed in that year. 1 
The Albany Evening Journal pronounced the testimony 
taken before a grand jury concerning the corrupt doings 
in the Legislature of 1861 a " sickening expose ", and 
further said : " It presents a dark picture of the processes 
employed to secure legislative action upon important bills. 
. . ." 2 " Now to be a member of the State Legislature," 
said Mr. Pierce on the floor of the Assembly in 1862, " is 
an impeachment of a man's standard of honesty." 3 Henry 
J. Raymond gave utterance to similar sentiments. 4 The 
lobby was estimated as more numerous than either of the 
legislative houses. 5 In Gideon Welles' opinion, this feature 
at Albany was " the most offensive lobby combination of 
that date." 6 Greeley wrote: 

We reported the proceedings of the Assembly through a good 
part of the session of '38, without making the acquaintance 
of any person who made a gainful business of advocating or 

opposing the passage of bills now their name is 

Legion, their impudence sublime, .... Some of them are 
well dressed, dispense real champagne and will touch nothing 
under $100 ; others are seedy suckers, who will take a five 
dollars [sic] if they can get no more. 

Greeley also recorded his belief that the ability of the legis- 
lators, as shown in the debates, had degenerated. 7 The Gov- 

'H. B. Stanton to Chase: "New York Republicanism has been 
made a reproach, a by -word, by the rascally conduct of our state legis- 
lature under the lead of Weed" (Hart's Chase, p. 185). See also 
Argus, April 10, 1861. 

2 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 23, 1862. 

3 Herald, Jan. 16, 1862; Argus, Jan. 16, 1862. 

*■ Herald, Jan. 24, 1862; Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 24. 1862. 

5 Tribune, Jan. 27, i860. 

* Welles' Lincoln and Seward, p. 27. 7 Tribune, April 28. 1863. 



235] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 35 

ernor, Edwin D. Morgan, was somewhat better than the 
legislature, and used his veto with good effect j 1 but he seems 
to have been without much independence where Thurlow 
Weed was concerned. 

In New York City, the robbery which came to a culmi- 
nation ten years later, was already present in a startling 
degree. The ring in the board of supervisors, which a decade 
later became so notorious, was already in existence, having 
been formed, according to Tweed's own testimony, about 
1859 for the purpose of controlling in the interests of 
Tammany the appointment of registry clerks ; and from that 
time, the corrupt combination operated on many subjects 
that came before the board. 2 Toward the end of the period 
here treated, the expenditure of immense sums of money by 
New York City to fill its quotas of troops, all of which 
money was handled by the board of supervisors, furnished 
a great opportunity for Tweed and his allies. 3 

But it was the aldermanic ring which was conspicuous in 
the early sixties. " It is to this Ring," said the Tribune, 

that we owe the shameful Battery swindle ; the disorganization 
of the Williamsburg Ferries; the defeat of the plan for putting 
the Post Office in the Park; the daily violation of the charter 

'Democrats accused Morgan of attempting to work an "honesty 
dodge," saying that his vetoes were intended to be overridden, and 
they asserted that Morgan and Weed had a thorough understanding 
while the vetoes were paraded in public. This seems to have been 
merely a partisan accusation; the Evening Post, which was sufficiently 
independent to expose such a condition had it existed, spoke of the 
" perfect understanding among the leaders of the majority in their war 
with Governor Morgan" {Evening Post, quoted by Argus September 
5, i860). Upon Morgan's retirement, the Argus acknowledged that 
he had "with great fidelity fulfilled the duties of his high office" 
{Argus, Jan. 1, 1863). 

* Report of the Special Committee of the Board of Aldermen appointed 
to investigate the Ring Frauds, pp. 14, 16. 
'Breen's Thirty Years of New- York Politics, p. 55. 



36 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [236 

in refusing to contract for the street cleaning; the retardation 
of the Central Park by refusing to issue bonds ; the expensive 
and unreasonable extensions of Belgian pavements in remote 
and unfrequented streets ; the doubling and trebling of ex- 
penses for celebrations ; the shameless extravagance of public 
printing. . . . Let any man come to the City Hall with ever 
so just a bill against the City, and he will be put off, until 
quite accidentally a friend of the Ring hints that a few 
dollars paid to such an outsider will induce the Board to put 
his bill forward. . . . Confirming contracts is a good busi- 
ness for the Ring. . . . 1 

Perhaps, it was to hit at some rival but surely it was not 
without knowledge that Judge Barnard — he of subsequent 
Tweed ring fame — in 1864 thus charged the Grand Jury: 

A few years since a body of unprincipled and corrupt men 
banded together for the purpose of controlling the legislative 
branch of the city government by their votes, forming what is 
now known as the " Ring." It is still in active operation. 
There is no scheme, no matter how corrupt or wicked, but 
what will pass through provided a sufficient pecuniary induce- 
ment is brought to bear; and no measure, however meritor- 
ious, is sufficient to become a law unless a like influence is used. 2 

The years 1860-61 were said to have been the heyday of 
these boodlers. At this time and later the leading spirit of 
the combination was an alderman named Boole. 3 The city 

1 Tribune, Aug. 2, i860. The Herald, too, bore testimony to the ex- 
istence and corrupt doings of the ring, e. g., Herald, Aug. 7, i860. 

' Tribune, April 8, 1864. 

8 Tribune, Nov. 28, 1863. See also A. D. White's Autobiography, i, 
p. 108. Boole had been a member of the Board of Councilmen of 1856, 
which body acquired a bad reputation because of its jobbery. Later, the 
Board of Aldermen, under Boole's leadership, appropriated $80,000 for 
the Japanese Reception, including $7,000 for carriages, a proceeding 
which rightfully was considered a scandal. In 1863 Boole was both 
city inspector and alderman {Tribune, Nov. 28, 1863). 



237 j POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 37 

and county debt rose from fourteen millions in 1855 to 
twenty-eight and a quarter millions in 1862. Speaking of 
a few years later — and the same conditions probably existed 
in i860 — an address signed by prominent citizens said that 
the public wharves, piers, ferries, markets, and buildings 
were so mismanaged as to yield but trifling revenue, that 
the streets were badly paved and many of them filthy, and 
that through neglect the mortality of the city had become 
alarmingly great. 1 

The Herald editorially declared that some of the newly- 
elected members of the Common Council were at that 
moment under indictment, and the Tribune affirmed that 
the charge was true. 2 The former paper said : 

Our city legislators, with but few exceptions, are an unprin- 
cipled, illiterate, scheming set of cormorants, foisted upon the 
community through the machinery of primary elections, bribed 
election inspectors, ballot box stuffing, and numerous other 
illegal means. . . . The consequence is that we have a class 
of municipal legislators forced upon us who have been edu- 
cated in barrooms, brothels and political societies ; and whose 
only aim in attaining power is to consummate schemes for 
their own aggrandizement and pecuniary gain. 3 

The Tribune bore like testimony. It said : " Our local gov- 

' Address of the Citizens' Association, signed among others by Peter 
Cooper, Hamilton Fish, and William E. Dodge — printed in the Tribune, 
Feb. 8, 1864. Godkin's Life and Letters, i, pp. 171-3 gives similar 
testimony written in 1857. 

2 Herald, Jan. S, i860. The aldermen adopted a resolution appointing 
a special committee to take into consideration the Herald' s article. 
The Tribune warned the Common Council to beware how they played 
" with two-edged tools, as, unfortunately for the city, some of the mem- 
bers are amenable to the charge made by the Herald" — Tribune, Jan. 
17, i860. It does not appear that any further action was taken by the 
aldermen. 

3 Herald, Jan. 13, i860. Similar testimony was given in 1857 by 
Godkin, Life and Letters, i, pp. 171-3. 



38 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [238 

eminent could not well be worse. . . . Our Common Coun- 
cil is probably as utterly shamelessly corrupt as any such 
body ever was on earth. It is a stench in the nostrils of the 
whole city . . . ," and Republican though this paper was, 
it expressed the opinion that half of the Republican minority 
in either board was about as rotten as the majority of the 
Democrats. 1 

In i860, there were the same complaints that we frequently 
hear now about the lack of interest in municipal nomina- 
tions and elections by those classes of the population having 
most at stake. 2 Robert B. Roosevelt, a prominent citi- 
zen, asserted that the candidates at the municipal election of 
December, 1864, included " prize fighters, emigrant run- 
ners, baggage smashers, bounty swindlers, notorious thieves, 
state's prison graduates, and others whose occupation has 
been too low to mention." 3 How much worse conditions, 
were then than now, is shown by the fact that reform was 
then far more difficult; for the primaries were in 1862 
" notoriously and proverbially the scenes of the most dis- 
graceful fraud, chicanery, and violence," unregulated by 
law, and so bad that " Peaceable and orderly citizens, almost 
without exception, refuse [d] to attend " them. 4 To make 
conditions even more hopeless, elections were tainted with 
frauds, apparently far worse than those with which we may 
now be afflicted. 5 The present-day laments over the short- 

1 Tribune, Mar. 12, i860. 

3 Tribune, June 29, i860; Herald, Dec. 6, i860; Godkin (in 1857) Life 
and Letters, i, pp. i7 I- 3- 

3 Herald, Dec. 2, 1864. 

1 Report of a select committee of the Board of Aldermen, Documents 
of the Board of Aldermen, 1862, xxxiv, no. 7, quoted in Myers' His- 
tory of Tammany Hall, p. 243; see also Tribune, Dec. 27, 1864. 

■' Davenport's Election Frauds of New York City and their Preven- 
tion, i, pp. 30, 34, 35, 49, 57; Myers' History of Tammany Hall, p. 233. 



239] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 39 

comings of New York's municipal government hardly ex- 
ceed the fierce denunciation of the character and actions 
of the officials of the metropolis during the period here dealt 
with ; and, in view of the development a few years after the 
war, these allegations were seemingly all too well founded. 

The great subjects which engaged the attention of the 
whole nation had not, at the beginning of i860, entirely dis- 
placed, as party questions in New York, matters relating 
more particularly to the State, but the transition was going 
on. This was shown in the session of the Legislature of 
that year. By far the greater part of Governor Morgan's 
annual message ! was devoted to the state finances, charities, 
canals, railroads, and other institutions. The Governor re- 
ferred briefly and moderately to the slavery issue, express- 
ing the common Republican opinions on the evils of slavery, 
the duty of non-interference with it in the states where it 
existed, opposition to its extension into the territories, and 
the right of Congress to legislate thereon. As to the John 
Brown raid, he declared that New York State emphatically 
disavowed " all sympathy or co-operation with those mis- 
guided men. . . . We may admit that their aims were un- 
selfish and even philanthropic . . . but we must never 
forget the obvious truth, that social order can only exist 
through a general recognition of the sanctity of law, ..." 
This passage in the message, some resolutions bearing on 
similar topics, and the various Union-saving meetings held 
within the State furnished occasion for several party de- 
bates and speeches in both houses. 2 

Two party measures of this session were closely connected 
with the great national question. One was a personal-liberty 

1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 151-198. 

' Argus, Jan. 12, 18, 28, Feb. 8, 15, Mar. 3, 5; Herald, Jan. 12, 18, 
21, Feb. 8. 15. 



4 o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [240 

bill. 1 Such a measure had passed in the Assembly during" 
the previous year, but failed in the Senate. 2 The radical 
Republicans, who were strongly in favor of this bill, were 
not able this time to secure its passage even through the 
lower house, owing, one of their number charged, to their 
opposition to the city railroad bills. 3 The other measure 
referred to was the constitutional amendment, already acted 
upon favorably by the preceding legislature, abolishing the 
property franchise qualification for negoes. Such an 
amendment, it was estimated, would increase the negro vote 
from three or four hundred to nine or ten thousand. 4 Despite 
some dissent on the Republican side in both houses and a 
vigorous and unanimous opposition from the Democrats, 
the measure passed. 5 

As the session advanced, however, the legislators got 
down to more interesting business. In i860, the New York 
legislature was already distinguished for its numerous and 
powerful lobby, for its constant tinkering with the local 
government of New York City, and generally for its corrup- 
tion. This particular legislature of i860 went down in the 
annals of the State with a very bad record, because of its 
grants of charters for New York City railroads. The at- 
tempted abuse in the giving of such franchises by the muni- 
cipal Common Council of 1852 — " the forty thieves " — had 
led to the power being taken from that body in the follow- 
ing year and being vested in the legislature. Three projects 

1 Herald, Mar. 12; Assembly Journal, I860, pp. 356, 463. 

2 Herald, Jan. 9; Argus, Jan. 27. 

3 Letter of Assemblyman Powell, one of the committee which reported 
the bill, to the editors of the Evening Post, printed in the Post, Oct. 
27. The bill was debated at several sessions on party lines. 

'Herald, Sept. 18. 

5 Herald, Feb. 11, April 19; Argus, Feb. 11, April 10; Assembly 
Journal, 1S60, p. 712. 



2 4 l] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 4 I 

for city railroads had failed at the session of 1859. Now 
these bills were lumped together in the infamous " grid- 
iron " bill, whose chief beneficiary was George Law. 1 The 
Tribune said of this bill that it was " generally regarded 
as a scheme to divide about $1,000,000 between the lobby 
kings who devised and the members who voted " for it. 2 
We have already seen what Thurlow Weed's connection 
with this measure was. 3 Though the committee on cities 
and villages reported adversely on the bill as creating a 
monopoly, and though the Assembly by an overwhelming 
majority agreed with its committee, 4 a fortnight later separ- 
ate bills for the street railroads were reported and the House 
reversed its previous course. 5 In the end, the measures went 
through both houses. The Governor vetoed all but one ; 6 
but they were passed over his veto in both Senate and As- 
sembly, 7 through Weed's influence, 8 though the Albany 
Evening Journal later positively denied that charge. 9 The 
Democratic members in their customary address issued at 
the close of the session, assailed the corruption of the legis- 
lature controlled by their opponents; but the fact was that 
on these railroad bills, which gave that body its black record, 
party lines were wiped out. 10 

1 Herald, Mar. 9: Tribune, Mar. 9. 

2 Tribune, Mar. 9. 3 Ante, p. 23. 

* Herald, Mar. 15; Assembly Journal, I860, pp. 641-2. 

5 Assembly Journal, I860, pp. 861-867. 

8 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 238-242. 

7 Assembly Journal, 1860, pp. 1363-1366; 1382 (Senate's concurrence). 

8 Supra for Weed's admission of his connection with this leg- 
islation. The Tribune of August 20 declared that "the editor of the 
Albany Evening Journal is well known to have been the most active 
and powerful agent in inducing Republican senators and members of 
the Assembly to ... . nullify his [Morgan's] veto." 

9 Albany Evening Journal , Aug. 21. 

10 Herald, April 19; Tribune, April 12. 



42 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [242 

Three of this session's bills of a partisan nature were 
aimed at the New York Central Railroad. Many Repub- 
licans believed that the influence of this corporation was 
used against their party and in behalf of the Democrats ; 1 
and despite the denials of that accusation on the part of the 
directors, a persistent agitation was kept up for several years 
against the company. One of the bills prevented voting by 
proxy by railroad stockholders, the intent probably being to 
get control of the road from Erastus Corning by depriving 
him of the votes of foreign stockholders, 2 and perhaps (as 
charged) to transfer the road's influence to the Republicans. 
Those opposed to this measure argued that such a law 
would be regarded abroad as practical repudiation and that 
since American corporations were largely dependent on 
foreign capital, such legislation would be fatal. 3 The Re- 
publicans were not unanimous in support of the bill, and it 
failed to pass. 4 

The other two bills, if enacted, would have hit the New 
York Central principally. They were both in the interests 
of the canals. One was the pro-rata bill, which aimed to 
prevent discrimination in freight charges against shippers 
in New York State. 5 The western counties were urgently 
asking for relief of this sort. 6 Naturally the canal for- 

1 Herald, Jan. 11; Tribune, Feb. 20. 

1 Herald, Jan. 12, partly confirmed by remarks in the assembly de- 
bate, Argus, Mar. 1. 

:t Argus, Jan. 23. Frequent editorials in the Argus during February 
denounced the bill. 

4 Assembly Journal, i860, p. 941. The Albany Evening Journal 
(Feb. 27) was against the bill. The warfare against the Central was 
renewed in 1863, when the Times and the Tribune assailed the road's 
management. The Argus (Nov. 20) replied that six of the directors 
were Republicans, six Democrats, and one a non-resident whose poli- 
tics were not known. 

s Argus, Feb. 29. ''Herald, Feb. 25. 



243] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 43 

warders desired such a measure. On the other hand, the op- 
ponents of the bill, who included the New York City Cham- 
ber of Commerce, 1 claimed that such a law would drive 
traffic to other states and to Canada, and irreparably injure 
the commerce of New York State. The third measure was 
the bill to toll the railroads. It was urged that the State, 
upon authorizing the construction of the various railroads 
which had been subsequently merged into the New York 
Central, had done so on the express condition, that they 
should not carry freight, or if they did, that they should 
pay tolls; and it was declared that the action of the Legis- 
lature of 185 1 in relieving the roads from such tolls was un- 
wise and unconstitutional. 2 But a stronger argument was 
the imperative need of the State for additional revenues. 
Such a law would provide funds sufficient to avert the 
threatened large increase in the direct tax, which it was 
thought might endanger Republican supremacy in the State. 3 
In his annual message, Governor Morgan recommended 
the reimposition of tolls ; and during the session he sent 
in a special message renewing the advocacy of such a meas- 
ure. 4 On the other hand. Dean Richmond appeared on the 
scene and lobbied against these bills; 5 and the Albany Argus 
kept up a daily warfare upon them. As to the toll bill, it 
was said that as the State had not constructed the railroads, 
it would be unjust to levy tolls upon them, and also that it 
was inequitable to single out one species of property for tax- 

1 Protest of that body against the pro-rata bill, printed in the Albany 
Evening Journal, Feb. 16. 

'E.g., speech of Senator Bell {Argus, Mar. 23); Tribune, April 5; 
opinion of the Attorne3 r -General, Argus, April 4. 

3 Tribune, April 3; Herald, April 6. 

* Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 204-212. 

s Herald, Jan. 14, Feb. 5. 



44 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [244 

ation. 1 The Republican majority, the Argus asserted, had 
not " the courage to meet the responsibility of direct tax- 
ation or to hold the government to its necessary and simple 
functions." 2 The raid upon the railroads was declared to 
be the consequence of the policy of extravagance and debt 
which the Republicans had introduced ; 3 and the bills were 
denounced as acts of " rapine and confiscation and plunder" * 
— " the legacy of Sewardism to the State." 6 

The debates in both houses, however, seem to have been 
for the most part on economic and financial rather than on 
party lines. 6 Perhaps this was owing to the fact that upon 
both the pro-rata and the toll bills the Republicans were di- 
vided. In vain caucuses were resorted to. 7 A part of the 
Republicans in both houses joined with almost all the Demo- 
crats against the canal representatives. The pro-rata bill 
passed the Assembly, though with twenty-eight Republican 
nays ; 8 but the scheme was practically defeated by a coali- 
tion in the Senate between the Democrats and part of the 
Republicans, by which a substitute was adopted providing 
for the appointment of a commission to confer with like 

1 Argus, Jan. 23. 

* Argus, Feb. 25. Similar attacks, Feb. 11, Mar. 23. 
s Argus, Jan. 31. * Argus, Mar. 22. 

6 Argus, Feb. 29. 

6 Pro-rata bill debates, Argus, Feb. 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, Mar. 1, 3. Toll 
bill debates, Argus, Feb. 11, Mar. 8, 10, 15, April 13. 

''Argus, Mar. 21, 22, 23. The Albany Evening Journal, after being 
silent on the pro-rata bill for a month and a half, came out against it 
(Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 15, 24); during the earlier half of the 
session it favored the toll bill with a removal of restrictions on fares as 
a compensation to the railroads (Albany Evening Journal, Mar. 9). It 
also favored accepting a lump sum from the railroads (Albany Evening 
Journal, April 12). Weed later (Aug. 21) said that he had acquiesced 
in a policy of which he did not approve. 

8 Assembly Journal, 1S60, p. 461. 



245 ] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 45 

bodies from other states on the feasibility of establishing a 
uniform and equitable system of freight rates. 1 Even this 
measure, however, failed to pass, owing to a disagreement 
between the houses as to the composition of the commission. 2 
As to the toll bill, it passed the Assembly ; s but in the Sen- 
ate the same sort of combination as had been formed on the 
pro-rata bill passed a substitute, imposing tolls for three 
years but authorizing in lieu thereof the payment of certain 
fixed sums (including $500,000 from the New York Cen- 
tral) and authorizing the Central to charge two and a half 
cents a mile on way travel. 4 This would have thrown part 
of the tax upon passengers. The Assembly refused to ac- 
cept the substitute, 5 each house clung to its own bill, 6 and 
thus the attempt to toll the railroads failed. 7 The Tribune 
charged that the loss of the bill involved the setting aside of 
a policy which had previously " received the deliberate and 
hearty assent of the Editor of the Albany Evening Journal," 
that Weed had become " a powerful element in the combina- 
tion headed by Dean Richmond which defeated" the bill, and 
that " individuals made large sums out of the stock specu- 
lations based upon an early and certain knowledge that the 
Governor's recommendation as to Railroad Tolls was to be 
defeated." 8 Subsequently, the Argus, while praising the 

'Assembly Journal, 1860, p. 1135; Senate Journal, I860, pp. 602, 606. 
* Argus, April 11; Assembly Journal, I860, p. 1383. 

3 Five Democrats voted for and six Republicans against the bill. 
Assembly Journal, 1860, p. 576. 

4 Argus, Mar. 8; Senate Journal, 1860, p. 465. 
6 Assembly Journal, 1860, p. 944. 

6 Assembly Journal, 1860, pp. 1134, 1345, 1368; Senate Journal, 1860, 
PP- 693, 936. 
''Argus, April 18. 
8 Tribune, Aug. 20. 



4 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [246 

Senate for having fearlessly defended the public interests, 
said that the upper house of the Legislature had defied " a 
storm of abuse and detraction unprecedented in the his- 
tory of the State." * 

Lastly, mention should be made of the metropolitan police 
law 2 and of the proposed charter amendments for New 
York City. The former, a Republican measure, which it 
was asserted had Tammany back of it, 3 took from the 
mayors of New York City and Brooklyn their ex-ofrkio 
seats in the metropolitan police board, thereby dealing a 
blow at Fernando Wood, 4 and reduced the membership of 
the board to three persons appointed by the governor. The 
career of the charter amendments showed how the interests 
of New York City were buffeted about by contrary political 
currents at Albany. Tammany was eager to clip still 
further Wood's wings, Wood was anxious to take from the 
aldermen the control of the municipal patronage, and 
Hawes, the Republican controller of New York City, wanted 
increased power. 5 The amendments took such form as to 
deprive the aldermen of the right to confirm or reject nomi- 
nations, and to give more power to the mayor and the con- 
troller. 6 This combination, however, met with strenuous 
opposition from Tammany. 7 Near the close of the session 
the committee reported an amendment taking from the 
mayor certain powers which were given to the controller 

1 Argus, Nov. 19. 

* Assembly Journal, 1%60, p. 1209. 
'Herald, Feb. 3. 

* Herald, April 12; Argus, April 5, II. 

5 Herald, Feb. II, Mar. 2, 12; Argus, Mar. 21. 
''Herald, Mar. 24; Tribune, Mar. 28. 
7 Herald, Mar. 22, 24. 



247] POLITICAL SITUATION IN i860 47 

and leaving those of the aldermen untouched; whereupon 
the whole matter was buried by the House. 1 

1 Herald, April 7; Assembly Journal, 1860, p. 1051. The same sort 
of conflict between Tammany and Mozart occurred during the session 
of 1861 over a bill for a commission to draw up a new charter for New 
York City {Herald, April 6, 1861). The debates and divisions on ques- 
tions connected with the canals were in part on partisan lines, though 
mostly not so {Argus, Mar. 1, 2, 8, 10). Two minor bills, which 
caused quite warm party debates, were those concerning the public 
health in New York, Kings and Richmond Counties {Argus, April 4, 
10), and abolished the Almshouse governors {Argus, April 10). 



CHAPTER II 

New York and the Presidential Nominations of i860 

The Wood movement was more formidable than thej 
Regency organs affected to believe. During the early part 
of the year, the anti-Regency Democrats in their respective 
congressional districts throughout the State, chose delegates 
to the Charleston Convention ; * and at the beginning of 
February, a state convention for the purpose of naming the 
delegates at large was held at Syracuse. Every county was 
represented, a number of men prominent in local politics 
were in attendance, the proceedings were harmonious, and 
the delegates were reported as confident of their admission 
at Charleston. 2 Thomas G. Alvord, ex-speaker of the as- 
sembly and later lieutenant-governor, was elected president 
of the convention. The prevailing note in the speeches was 
that those assembled represented the national Democracy 
of the State, " that portion of the Democracy who contend 
honestly and faithfully, not hypocritically, for the reserved 
equal and sovereign rights of every State, . . . whose 
record is not stained with any Wilmot proviso or anti-slav- 
ery agitation." 3 Fernando Wood, John A. Green, Gideon 
J. Tucker, and Joshua R. Babcock were selected as delegates 
at large. Wood being subsequently chosen chairman of the 

x Herald, Jan. 4, 7; Tribune, Feb. 7. 
1 Herald, Feb. 7; Tribune, Feb. 7. 

5 Speech of John A. Green upon calling the convention to order. 
The same sentiments were expressed by Thomas G. Alvord. 

48 ' [248 



249] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 49 

delegation. 1 His own speech was of a tone which must have 
satisfied the most rabid state rights Southerner. The 
Charleston Mercury commended it as " a sound Democratic 
speech," and Wood's principles as " all the Southern rights 
party . . . require of the Convention." 2 The consequences 
of this rift in the New York Democracy were not difficult 
to foresee. The Herald, at the beginning of February, pre- 
dicted that whichever set of contestants might be seated at 
Charleston, the result would be the same, the loss of the state 
by the Democrats. 

The regular delegation included far more men of ability 
and prominence than did that of Wood. In the former as 
delegates at large were Dean Richmond, Isaac V. Fowler, 
and Augustus Schell ; among the district delegates were Au- 
gust Belmont, ex-Speaker William H. Ludlow, John Kelly, 
United States Marshal Isaiah Rynders (of Empire Club 
fame and for years a character in New York politics), John 
Cochrane, Nelson J. Waterbury, John Clancy, Erastus Corn- 
ing, Henry S. Randall (the biographer of Jefferson), Peter 
Cagger, Lemuel Stetson and Darius A. Ogden (both of 
whom later were prominent war Democrats), Edwin Cros- 
well and Sanford E. Church. 3 It will be seen from these 
names that the delegation was not wholly composed of 
former " softs ". At the state convention in the previous 
year, Daniel S. Dickinson had made a speech utterly repro- 
bating the tactics of Wood and thus influenced many of the 
delegates to desert that wily leader. 4 It was subsequently 
asserted that this effective aid from Dickinson was procured 

'Herald, Feb. 8. 

'Charleston Mercury of Feb. 18, quoted in Herald, Feb. 22. 

3 Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 14. 

* Argus, Jan. 11; Dickinson's Speeches, Correspondence, etc., i, pp. 
624, 678. 



5 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [250 

by the Regency leaders through an understanding that half 
of the delegation to the Charleston Convention should be 
" hards ", thus securing a chance for Dickinson's presiden- 
tial aspirations, but that having carried their point, the 
Regency had played false to the Sage of Binghampton. 1 
Certainly, the majority of the delegation were " softs " ; and 
through the unit rule which they had been instructed to 
follow at the state convention, they were all in Dean Rich- 
mond's control. 

Dickinson's friends were active in his support. They 
claimed that as a Northern man who had consistently clung 
to Southern views for years and who had not bolted nor 
even revenged himself when Buchanan handed over the 
patronage to the " softs ", Dickinson would be very accept- 
able to the South. Moreover, they urged that he could 
carry New York against Seward. In January, when the 
Argus was disparaging the Wood movement, it made much 
of Dickinson's adherence to the regular state convention, 
and said editorially that if the Charleston Convention 

should summon from a dignified retirement to lead the Demo- 
cratic hosts, such a man as Daniel S. Dickinson — or any other 
patriotic son of this State — it would be mere affectation, it 
would be positively ungrateful in us, or the Democrats of 
this State, to conceal the gratification which such a selection 
would afford. 2 

But when the time for action drew near, the Regency 
leaders would not support Dickinson. 3 They were subse- 

1 Washington correspondence of the Hetald, May 2; Herald, Jan. 7, 
June 21, July 7; Tribune, June 27; Albany Evening Journal, June 26. 

2 Argus, Jan. n. 

8 Herald, April 23; Tribune, April 23, 24. Dickinson's strength was 
shown later when he received in the seceders' convention at Baltimore 
24 out of 105 votes for the presidential nomination (Halstead, Political 
Conventions of 1860, p. 224). 



251] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 51 

quently accused of manoeuvring to hand the prize eventu- 
ally to Horatio Seymour. Very likely they would have 
been glad to take advantage of any opening for him, but it 
seems that they were sincerely for Douglas. Before the 
question as to which delegation should be admitted was de- 
cided, both sets of contestants naturally preserved more or 
less of a discreet silence as to preferences j 1 but the Regency 
leaders doubtless realized that the Democracy of New York 
State could but kill itself if it favored an extreme Southern 
platform or candidate. That the major part of the delega- 
tion leaned toward Douglas and that he was the favorite 
of the larger portion of the party in this State, 2 the Doug- 
las men at Charleston were probably aware. On the 
other hand, the sympathies of the Wood contestants could 
hardly be in doubt. So it was that in the contest for New 
York's seats the ultra Southerners sided with Wood and 
the Douglas men with the Regency. 

Just before the opening of the convention, Senator Slidell, 
withdrawing his name from consideration for the presi- 
dential nomination, indicated the acceptability to the South 
of Dickinson, Horatio Seymour, Lane, or Toucey as the 
head of the ticket ; 3 but the presence of two delegations from 

1 Herald, Washington dispatch, April 17 (both delegations were then 
in Washington); Herald, April 21; Tribune, April 19, 23, 24. Wood, 
however, was reported as having circulated in Charleston his Connecti- 
cut speeches and as having professed there his attachment to slavery 
{Tribune, April 23) . 

2 John Stryker, a delegate who in caucus at Charleston cast his vote 
for Dickinson, said later: "... the feelings of their [i. e., the New 
York delegates'] constituents had become somewhat excited in favor of 
Mr. Douglas." The regular state convention of 1859, -at which the 
delegates to the national convention were chosen, had passed resolu- 
tions approving the Cincinnati platform (speech of Stryker, quoted 
from the Rome Daily Sentinel in the Argus, Aug. 20). 

3 Letter of Slidell printed in the Herald, May 17. 



52 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [252 

New York deprived it of the consideration which ordinarily 
is given to its favorite sons. And yet, as events proved, 
New York's attitude proved all decisive. At the national 
conventions of 1852 and 1856, New York had sent two dele- 
gations, and the seats had been equally divided between 
them. To have gained such recognition would have been a 
great triumph for Fernando Wood, and in all likelihood 
would have greatly increased his power. Probably, Wood 
hoped for no more than this. But in addition to the disad- 
vantages stated above, he and his followers labored under 
the handicap of not being the " regular " delegation ; and 
Wood's reputation was so much against him that, if a press 
correspondent may be believed, the committee on creden- 
tials were astonished to find him a polished gentleman and 
not a rowdy. 1 

The Regency delegation won the first stage of the con- 
test by securing tickets of admission, which were denied to 
the Wood delegation. 2 Immediately after the temporary 
organization of the convention, Fisher of Virginia offered 
a letter of protest from the Wood contestants. Cochrane, 
of New York, objected to the reading of the document, 
whereupon Fisher questioned the right of Cochrane to speak 
on the subject and moved that neither of the contestants 
from New York be allowed to vote in the organization of 
the convention or to take part in its proceedings until the 
contest should be determined. This brought on an exciting 
and disorderly debate. In the end, New York, like Illinois, 
was permitted to participate in the work of the committee 
on organization, and in the committee on credentials to vote 
upon all cases except its own. Upon motion of Cochrane, 
Wood's letter was referred to the committee on credentials 

1 Herald, April 25. 

' Tribune, April 19; Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 7. 



253J THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 53 

without being read to the convention. 1 Thus, at the end 
of the first day's session, the Regency delegates actually 
held the seats, had taken part in the proceedings, and had 
been accorded representation upon the two important com- 
mittees ; the Wood delegates had nothing. A number of 
Southerners had fought upon the floor for Wood; but the 
Douglas men stood steadily by the Regency delegates, and 
the presiding officer, a Douglas adherent, steadily ruled in 
their behalf. 2 

Before the committee on credentials, Alvord for the 
Wood delegation and Cochrane for the Dean Richmond 
delegation presented their respective versions of what had 
occurred at the state convention of 1859, each charging the 
faction of the other with disgraceful fraud and violence. 3 
Wood also made an argument for his admission, asserting 
that the system of choosing delegates by congressional dis- 
tricts was fairer and more democratic than that according to 
which his opponents had been selected, that a large majority 
of the delegates at the state convention had acted with his or- 
ganization until after the passage of the resolution order- 
ing the election of delegates to the national convention by 
congressional districts, and that his delegation was na- 
tional in principle while his opponents were Free-soilers 
and bolters. 4 Despite this appeal to the South, the com- 
mittee on credentials decided in favor of the Dean Rich- 
mond delegation by the surprising vote of 23 to y. 5 Per- 
haps the large majority for the Regency contestants was 
due to hopes that New York would go for some other than 

1 Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, pp. 19-22; Herald, April 24; 
Tribu7ie, April 24. 

2 Herald, April 24; Charleston Mercury, April 24, quoted in the 
Argus, April 28. 

3 Charleston Courier, quoted in the Argus, May 1. 

4 Herald, April 28. 5 Herald, April 26. 



54 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [254 

Douglas; possibly it was understood that her votes in the 
convention would be cast for some one acceptable to the 
South. 1 A minority report favoring the equal division of 
the New York seats between the two contesting delega- 
tions was signed by six members, five of whom came from 
the cotton states. The convention adopted the majority 
report by a vote of 210J/2 to 55, all but three and a half 
votes of the nays coming from the South. 2 Thus the Re- 
gency won a complete victory. 

It was charged at the time that the votes of many South- 
ern men in the convention were secured for the Regency 
delegation by causing it to appear that New York would 
vote for a platform and a candidate satisfactory to the 
South, and that subsequently Dean Richmond and his asso- 
ciates treacherously repudiated the understanding. 3 That 
promises, expressed or implied, were made is not unlikely; 
and some probability is lent to the first part of the accusation 
by the fact that Edwin Croswell, a " hard ", was permitted 
to be New York's representative on the committee on reso- 
lutions. The great fight in the convention was on the plat- 
form. This matter caused heated dissension among the 
New York members. Most of the New York City men fav- 
ored a pro-Southern platform, but they and the relatively 
few up-state "hards" were outnumbered. 4 Dean Richmond 
was able to control the delegation so that Croswell was in- 
structed in caucus to reverse his vote on the platform, and 
he did so accordingly. Nevertheless, the committee offered 

'A report of such an arrangement was published in the Herald, 
April 26. 

' Herald, April 26: Charleston Mercury, quoted in the Argus, May 2. 

3 2s. g., Herald, April 27, May 2, 17; Charleston correspondence of 
the Washington Star, quoted in the Herald, May 1; Senator Bayard 
in the seceders' convention. Herald, May 2; Tribune, May 23. 

1 Herald, May 1. 



255] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 55 

by a vote of 17 to 16 a majority report embodying resolu- 
tions favored by the South. In the convention, New York, 
through the unit rule, cast all of its thirty-five votes for the 
minority or Douglas platform, which was thus adopted. 
Then came the secession of a number of Southern delegates. 
Later, the votes of New York were decisive in the adop- 
tion of a resolution requiring for nomination two-thirds of 
the entire membership of the convention. Such a condition, 
if adhered to, made it impossible for Douglas to obtain the 
prize. The accusation was therefore made that the Re- 
gency were traitors to both the Douglas and the anti-Douglas 
men with the purpose of ultimately bringing about the nomi- 
nation of Horatio Seymour. 1 However, a very plausible 
explanation of New York's apparent inconsistency was 
made. It was pointed out that the vote of her delegation on 
the platform was called for by the overwhelming sentiment 
of the larger portion of the party in the State, which prob- 
ably would have rendered a complete surrender to the South 
suicidal ; while the threatened withdrawal of the remain- 
ing Southern delegations rendered necessary the passage of 
the two-thirds rule. 2 The New York delegation, said one 
prominent Regency leader, supported this last mentioned 
proposition after a conference with the Southerners who still 
retained their seats in the convention, " although we re- 
garded the two-thirds rule as one of doubtful propriety, and 
although we all regarded the proposed construction of the 
rule ... as grossly unjustifiable under ordinary circum- 
stances." 3 

1 Herald, May 17; Washington correspondence of the Herald, June 
1, 2; Tribune, May 3, 23, June 27. 

'This explanation of the adoption of the two-thirds rule was given by 
Butler in a speech delivered at Lowell, Massachusetts, May 15 {Herald. 
May 21). 

* Speech of Sanford E. Church at Albany, Argus, June 28. 



5 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [256 

In caucus the New Yorkers expressed their preference 
for standard-bearer, Douglas receiving 37 votes, Dickinson 
20, Guthrie 10, Hunter 2, and Breckinridge i. 1 In the con- 
vention the whole vote, of course, went to Douglas, Dickin- 
son receiving a few scattering votes from other delega- 
tions. 2 Here again there were charges of treachery against 
the Regency leaders on the ground of their alleged promises 
to support Dickinson. From the standpoint of New York 
politics, the net result of the convention and of its adjourned 
session at Baltimore was to deepen the divisions and hatred 
in the New York Democracy. 

At Baltimore, as at Charleston, the New York delegation 
held the balance of power. Again there was talk of the 
nomination of Seymour or of Dickinson as a compromise 
candidate ; 3 but the Regency would have none of Dickinson, 
and Seymour wrote a letter of withdrawal. 4 Nevertheless, 
Dean Richmond was accused of waiting for a favorable 
moment to drop Douglas for Seymour. 5 When the New 
York delegation was held united against the proposal of- 
fered by one of the leading Democrats from that State, San- 
ford E. Church, providing that all accepting seats in the 
convention should be bound in honor to abide by the action 
of the convention and agree to support the nominee — a 
proposition which the ardent Douglas men supported — it 

1 Herald, May 1, 19, giving the vote in detail, said to be "from the 
notes of the secretary." These figures are partly confirmed by a 
speech of John Stryker in the Rome Sentinel, quoted by the Argus, 
Aug. 20. 

2 Herald, May 3. , 

3 Herald, June 19, 20; partly confirmed by Halstead, Political Con- 
ventions of 1860, p. 160. 

* Letter of Seymour to the editor of the Utica Daily Observer, printed 
in the Tribune, June 6. 

5 Herald, June 18, 21, 2j. Partly confirmed by Halstead, Political 
Conventions of I860, p. 229. 



257] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 57 

was suspected that New York was wavering in its allegiance 
to Douglas. 1 The editor of the Albany Argus was, as we 
have seen, specially well qualified to speak on the inner 
workings of the Regency. After the convention, the Argus 
declared that despite the admission of the contesting South- 
ern delegates at Baltimore, Douglas could not have been 
nominated had there not been a further secession ; " we 
speak confidently," it went on, 

when we say that there was no purpose — certainly not on the 
part of the New York delegation — to declare him nominated 
without a two-thirds vote of the delegates present. Further 
than this, we are entirely satisfied that, had there been no 
secession, after it had been demonstrated by a few ballots that 
Mr. Douglas could not receive two-thirds, he would have been 
withdrawn by his friends, and a harmonious nomination of 
some other person would have taken place. If not with- 
drawn, we are certain he would have been abandoned by a 
sufficient number to have given another candidate a two-thirds 
nomination. 2 

John Cochrane years afterwards wrote that just before 
the reassembling of the convention at Baltimore, Slidell, 
" assuming and unquestionably empowered with author- 
ity," offered to Dean Richmond and to Cochrane the united 
support of the Southerners, including the delegates who had 
seceded, for Seymour's nomination, provided the New York 

1 Tribune, June 19; Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860, p. 165. 

* Argus, June 25. This statement was in part confirmed by Sanford 
E. Church, who said: " While we supported Mr. Douglas with earnest- 
ness and sincerity, because we knew he was the choice of nine-tenths 
of the Democracy of the State, yet had the seceders remained in the 
convention, and had it become evident that Mr. Douglas could not se- 
cure the nomination by the regular, legitimate rule of the Democratic 
party, we should have been ready to vote for any other candidate who 
stood upon the Democratic platform and who would have received the 
fair nomination of the convention " (Speech of Church, Argus, June 28). 



58 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [258 

delegation voted for him; Richmond, however, after con- 
ferences declined the offer because of his inability to carry 
with him his friends in the delegation. 1 There is no neces- 
sary inconsistency between these two statements. Richmond 
perhaps was ready for a coup; but in the delegation there 
were not only staunch Douglas men, like Church, but also 
Dickinson men who probably could not have been brought 
to Seymour's support ; as for the others, it was not apparent 
that Douglas men from other states could have been in- 
duced, in sufficient numbers, to transfer their votes to Sey- 
mour. Meanwhile, it was far more preferable for the Re- 
gency to stick to Douglas rather than risk Dickinson's nomi- 
nation. As one correspondent put it, the Regency leaders 
found that New York could not " cut Douglas' throat with- 
out having her own cut in turn." 2 

The crucial question was that of the admission of the 
delegates who had seceded at Charleston or of the Douglas 
contestants who had been chosen in the interval. To give 
to the former the seats would have meant the killing-off of 
Douglas, which would have prepared the way for a com- 
promise candidate. Without New York's thirty-five votes, 
there were 110^2 votes favorable to and 99^ votes against 
the admission of the seceders. 3 New York was ready to 
make further concessions both as to the admission of dele- 
gates and as to candidates, had sufficient assurances been 
given that no further secession would occur ; but it was not 
willing to adopt a platform such as the Southerners de- 
manded. 4 For two days, the Regency leaders " shivered on 

' Article by John Cochrane in the Magazine of American History, 
xiv, pp. 151, 623. 

s Tribune, June 21; partly confirmed by Halstead, Political Conven- 
tions of I860, p. 227. 

* Herald, June 20. 

* Speech of Sanford E. Church, Argus, June 28; Argus editorial, 
June 25. 



059 J THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 59 

the brink of a decision," l meanwhile keeping the conven- 
tion and the political world in suspense. At last, after a 
prolonged contest in caucus, the delegation decided by a 
vote of 40 to 29 in favor of the report of the majority of 
the committee on credentials which recommended the ad- 
mission of the new Douglas delegations from Alabama and 
Louisiana. 2 

Even then, the New Yorkers were said to have held the 
way open to harmonious action. A motion to lay upon the 
table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the con- 
vention had refused to substitute the resolutions of the minor- 
ity of the committee on credentials for those of the ma- 
jority report, was defeated by the votes of the New York 
delegation. Thus a reconsideration was still possible when 
the convention adjourned to the evening. Douglas had 
already written to Richardson of Illinois authorizing the 
withdrawal of his name, and on the morning when the de- 
cisive vote was taken, had telegraphed to the same effect to 
Dean Richmond. The conditions attached to this offer, 
namely that the unity of the party could thereby be pre- 
served and that a non-intervention Union-loving Democrat 
should receive the nomination, 3 were such as to create the 
opportunity for New York to get the prize, if only the South 
could have been appeased. The New Yorkers endeavored 
to learn from the delegates who threatened to leave the con- 
vention what they desired. As the admission not only of 
the Louisiana seceders but also of those from Alabama and 
the adoption of the original majority report at Charleston 

1 Tribune, June 21 . 

'Protest of twenty-nine members of the delegation printed in the 
Albany Evening Journal, June 30; see also Herald, June 22; Tribune, 
June 22. 

s Halstead, Political Conventions of 1860 \ pp. 194-5. 



60 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [260 

were asked as the price of harmony, the New York delega- 
tion found itself helpless to patch up a peace, for such terms 
could not, of course, have been accepted by it. 1 The tele- 
gram to Richmond was suppressed and Douglas was nomi- 
nated. 

The times were particularly favorable to a third-party 
movement. These were the days when great Union-sav- 
ing meetings on the basis of compromise and concession 
were common through the North and not less so in New 
York State. There, as elsewhere, many finding no haven 
in either the Republican or Democratic camps and dislik- 
ing or fearing extreme and sectional agitation, sought a 
political party which would prevent the threatened rup- 
ture. After the events at Charleston had shown clearly 
how matters were drifting, the necessity for a conservative 
Union party seemed to many the more evident. In New 
York, the elements ready for amalgamation into such an 
organization were more promising to the politicians than in 
some states. The success of the balance-of-power ticket in 
1859 was recalled as showing what could be done here. 
Besides those impelled by love of country into such a move- 
ment, there was a powerful commercial class in New York 
City which would probably support any means of safeguard- 
ing their Southern interests. In brief, it was hoped to unite 
every man without the Democratic party who was opposed 
to Seward and his extreme doctrines. 

In the middle of January, i860, a National Union Ex- 
ecutive Committee of New York was formed. The transi- 
tion of the American party to the new organization may be 

ir The last twelve lines of the narrative above are based upon a speech 
by John Stryker, a delegate at Charleston, printed in the Argus, Aug. 
20 (citing the Rome Sentinel), corrected by Halstead, Political Con- 
ventions of 1860, p. 194; also partly confirmed by the speech of Sanford 
E. Church in the convention (Halstead, pp. 215-216); see also Halstead, 
p. 228. 



2 6l] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 6 1 

placed at a convention attended by but nineteen men at Bing- 
hampton a month later, when resolutions were adopted 
stating that the National Union organization had the hearty 
sympathy and cooperation of those who had supported the 
American balance-of-power ticket of the previous year, and 
pledging support to all measures of the new party which 
should be in favor of the Union, the Constitution, and the 
enforcement of the laws. 1 Soon after, ex-Governor Wash- 
ington Hunt, ex-Congressman George Briggs, and Francis 
Granger were among those from New York State who 
signed the address to the people of the United States adopted 
by the new Constitutional Union party. 2 

In this State, a call for a National Union State Conven- 
tion was issued by three representatives from the old-line 
Whigs, three from the American State Committee, three 
from the New York City Union Executive Committee, and 
three from the National Union Committee. 3 This conven- 
tion met at Troy on April 18th. William C. Hasbrouck, 
an old-line Whig and ex-speaker of the assembly, pre- 
sided. An almost complete set of delegates, headed by 
Washington Hunt and Erastus Brooks, was chosen to repre- 
sent New York at the National Union Convention ; but with 
an eye to future combination with the Democrats, a resolu- 
tion was adopted that action on the nomination of a distinct 
electoral ticket should be finally determined at a future state 
convention. 4 

The nomination of Bell seems to have caused some dissat- 
isfaction in this State. The New York delegation at Balti- 

1 Herald, Feb. 16; Tribune, Feb. 18. 

'Printed in the Herald, Feb. 21. 

s Printed in the Herald, Mar. 7. 

* Herald, April 20; Tribune, April 20, 24. 



62 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [262 

more favored Houston, 1 and there were signs in New York 
of considerable sentiment for the Texan even after Bell and 
Everett had been nominated. 2 Nevertheless, the nominees 
were promptly ratified at a large Cooper Institute meeting; 8 
the organization of clubs was reported as proceeding 
throughout the State ; 4 and ex-President Fillmore an- 
nounced his intention of voting for the ticket. 5 

The Republicans of New York State entered upon the 
campaign far more united than did their opponents, and 
this despite the grievous disappointment which Lincoln's 
nomination caused to thousands. The evidence that Seward 
was the choice of the great majority of New York Repub- 
licans is quite conclusive. True, there was in the early part 
of the year activity among Chase's friends, 6 and in Febru- 
ary the Tribune came out for Bates. 7 The opposition to 
Weed was to some extent 8 synonymous with antagonism to 
Seward. H. B. Stanton, Lieutenant-Governor Campbell, 
and William Cullen Bryant privately at least were against 
Seward's nomination. 9 Yet, in a lengthy estimate of Re- 
publican sentiment throughout the State, written by a cor- 
respondent evidently strongly desirous of exaggerating the 
possibility of a split in the Republican ranks, the writer 

1 Herald, May 9, 11. Speech of Brooks at a Bell-Everett ratification 
meeting, Herald, June 9. 

2 Houston and Stockton were nominated for president and vice-presi- 
dent at a meeting held at Schenectady in July. A full set of electors 
was named, but Houston later declined {Tribune, July 19). A 
demonstration in favor of Houston's nomination, held in Union Square 
at the end of May, was Well attended {Herald, May 30). 

3 Herald, June 9. 4 Herald, May 3. 

6 Letter of Fillmore, read at a Bell- Everett meeting, Herald, June 9. 
6 Herald, Feb. 25. 7 Tribune, Feb. 20. 

8 Bryant to Bigelow, Dec. 14, 1859, in Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 127. 

9 Hart's Chase, p. 185; Bigelow to Bryant, in Bancroft's Seward, i, 
p. 528. 



263] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 63 

failed to find any section where considerable feeling against 
Seward existed except in Erie County, and there it was at- 
tributed to the wish to conciliate the friends of Fillmore; 
the conclusion was reached that, taking the State as a whole, 
Seward was the first choice and the man whom a large ma- 
jority of the Republicans desired to see nominated. 1 At 
the meeting of the Republican State Committee to arrange 
for the election of delegates to the Chicago convention, a 
difference arose as to the manner of choosing the delegates, 
several members of the committee favoring election by con- 
gressional districts. Behind this move can be seen an at- 
tempted revolt against Weed. Yet the committeemen were 
reported as expressing without exception their preference 
for Seward's nomination. 2 Furthermore, when the Re- 
publican State Convention met in April, i860, but one reso- 
lution was adopted, and that amidst uproarious applause 
and evidently with no opposition; this resolution presented 
the name of Seward for the presidential nomination. 5 

Weed was not a delegate at Chicago, but he was there 
as Seward's chief manager. The picturesque details of the 
operations of Weed on the one hand and of Greeley, who 
was a delegate from Oregon, on the other, have been so 
often told as to render unnecessary their repetition. 4 It 
is sufficient to note here that the close association between 
Seward and Weed, together with a feeling that the influences 
of the Albany lobby would, in the event of Seward's elec- 

1 Herald, Feb. 25; compare Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 261. 

"'Herald, Feb. 1; Tribune, Feb. 1, 2. 

8 Herald, April 19; Tribune, April 19. 

* E. g., Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln, ii, p. 262 et seq.; Bancroft's Sew- 
ard, i, p. 531 et seq.; Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 269; TarbeW s Lincoln , 
i, p. 342 et seq.; Schurz's Reminiscences, ii, p. 176 et seq.; Field's 
Field, p. 136 et seq. 



64 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [264 

tion, be transferred to Washington, 1 did far more, probably, 
to defeat Seward than did the efforts of Greeley, George 
Opdyke, and David Dudley Field. 2 Greeley and Field, it is 
true, were exceedingly active against Seward. 3 After Lin- 
coln's nomination, some attributed to them and especially to 
the Tribune editor, the blame or praise (according to the 
point of view) for bringing about the result. Greeley in his 
paper disclaimed the responsibility. Immediately after the 
convention, he wrote that the most influential delegates — es- 
pecially Curtin and Lane — were against Seward, and that 
the New York Senator would have been stronger in the con- 
vention but for Weed's presence and support. 4 However 
effective or ineffective Greeley's efforts were, they served 
to prepare the way for the future enmities in the party in 
New York State by winning for him the bitter dislike of 
Seward's friends. 

The effect of Lincoln's nomination upon New York Re- 
publicans was eagerly watched. Before the convention, 
Seward men had been very confident, and hence the blow 
was felt all the more. The disappointment of New York Re- 

1 Hart's Chase, p. 184 et j^./Schurz's Reminiscences , ii, p. 184; Ban- 
croft's Seward, i, pp. 524-5; Welles' Lincoln and Seward, p. 27; Argus, 
April 10, 1861; Bryant to Bigelow (on the effect of the fact referred to in 
weakening Seward's prospects) in Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 127. 

'Chicago correspondence of the Herald, June 19; New York Times, 
quoted in the Tribune, May 26. Greeley, while declaring that Seward's 
association with Weed had been used with great effect against Seward, 
positively denied that he had used that argument. He said that he 
"carried none of New York's dirty linen to the Chicago laundry, and 
never voluntarily spoke of the distractions and complications of our 
New York politics, save to a New Yorker " {Tribune, May 26). 

3 Herald, May 15, 16, 17, 18; Ingersoll's Life of Greeley, p. 339: Field's 
Life of David Dudley Field, p. 125 et seq. 

4 Tribune, May 28. 



265] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 65 

publicans generally was certainly apparent ; 1 and of Thur- 
low Weed and the ardent friends of Seward, it was intense. 
Democrats for a few days hoped for and professed to see 
a refusal on the part of Seward Republicans cordially to 
support Lincoln. The tone of the chief Seward organs in 
the State lent justification to these hopes. The Albany 
Evening Journal published a mournful editorial letter, 
written by Weed's associate George Dawson, which said: 
" Misrepresentation has achieved its work. The timid and 
credulous have succumbed to threats and perversions. . . . 
The recognized standard bearer of the Republican party 
has been sacrificed upon the altar of fancied availability. 
The sacrifice was cruel and unnecessary." And although 
Lincoln and his friends were absolved from blame for this 
result, yet the writer remarked that the candidate did not 
owe his nomination to Seward's adherents, but " to other 
men and to other influences. . . . Upon them devolves the 
responsibility of the campaign." 2 

Webb in the New York Courier and Enquirer and Ray- 
mond in the New York Times opened fire upon Greeley. 
Replying to the latter's denial of having brought about 
Seward's defeat, Webb declared that 

a more deliberate and wicked falsehood than this never found 
publicity, even through the columns of the Tribune ... It 
was under the garb of friendship that the viper struck the 

1 Tribune, May 19, 26 (Rochester Correspondence); Herald, May 22 
(effect in Albany); A. B. Cornell's Ezra Cornell, p. 136; F. W. Sew- 
ard's Seward at Washington, ii, pp. 452-3. 

2 Albany Evening Journal, May 21. Dawson distinctly disclaimed 
having consulted Weed in regard to the matter in this letter; he, how- 
ever, probably gave utterance to sentiments common to both. See ac- 
count of McClure's interview with Weed on the evening after the nomi- 
nation was made: "He [Weed] . . . intimated very broadly that 
Pennsylvania, having defeated Seward, could now elect Curtin and 
Lincoln" (McClure's Lincoln and Men of War Times, p. 35]. 



66 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 66 

blow ; it was as the long-tried and well known friend of 
Seward, shedding crocodile tears over his unavailability, that 
he [Greeley] poisoned the minds of the leading men in the 
Convention and created doubts in regard to Mr. Seward's 
strength . . . 1 

In another issue, Webb said that " even the enemies of Re- 
publicanism . . . should execrate the conduct of the viper, 
which warmed into life and power by his [Seward's] coun- 
tenance . . . used the life and power thus bestowed, to 
sting to death his benefactor and confiding friend." Then 
Webb went on to attack Greeley's personal character, say- 
ing that the Tribune editor was " a coarse man " and pos- 
sessed 

none of the instincts of a gentleman . . . The Empire State 
is Republican to the core ; but let it be proclaimed that Horace 
Greeley is to guide her, and he and his friends to receive the 
credit of the work to be done . . . , neither Seward nor his 
friends . . . will avail to make the people wake up from the 
apathy which now pervades the State from a mere suspicion 
that those who cheated us at Chicago are now engineering the 
machine for the coming election. 2 

Raymond, on the way home from the convention, after 
stopping at Auburn, wrote a savage attack upon Greeley for 
his share in defeating Seward. Greeley was accused of 
gaining the confidence of delegates " by professions of re- 
gard and the most zealous friendship for Governor Seward, 
but presenting defeat, even in New York f as the inevitable 
result of his nomination," and of privately repudiating all 
further political friendship with Seward because the latter 

1 New York Courier and Enquirer, quoted in the Herald, May 31. 

2 New York Courier and Enquirer, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 14. 



267] THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 67 

•"had never aided or advised his [Greeley's] elevation to 
office." 1 Greeley, while pleading- not guilty to the first two 
charges, was irritated by the last. He held Seward respon- 
sible for it, and in the Tribune called upon the New York 
Senator for the private letter 2 which Greeley had written 
to Seward in November, 1854, in order that it might be 
printed verbatim and that every reader might judge how 
far it sustained the accusation. 3 Greeley's famous epistle 
dissolving the political partnership with Seward and Weed 
was duly returned by Seward and published in the Tribune, 
accompanied by a long editorial signed by Greeley, wherein 
he defended himself and assailed Raymond and Webb. 4 No 
immediate effect upon the campaign was apparent from this 
incident. Yet, the chance of healing the breach between 
Greeley and Weed was doubtless lessened from this time. 

Notwithstanding the absolution of Lincoln from blame 
for Seward's defeat and the pledges of loyalty to the ticket, 
this warfare among the four leading Republican journals of 
the State might well have encouraged the Democrats. 5 
However, from the very first, there were reassuring signs. 
The nominations were received with the usual salutes of one 
hundred guns, and the prevailing tone of the earliest rati- 

1 New York Times, May 24. 

2 For this incident, see Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 277 et seq. 

3 Tribune, May 25. 

4 Tribune, June 14. In the Tribune of May 31, Greeley had made a 
bitter attack upon Raymond. 

5 "The nomination of Lincoln places the recovery of this State from 
Black Republican misrule clearly within reach of the Democratic 
party" — New York News, quoted by the Argus, May 23; upon which 
the Argus comments: "When the New York delegation go to Balti- 
more they cannot be taunted as at Charleston, with representing a Re- 
publican State! New York is Democratic by 20,000 majority; . . ." 
Another editorial in the Argus of May 19 said, " The Republican party 
is struck with a paralytic stroke, especially in the State of New York. . ." 



68 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [268 

fication meetings was, along with regret, confidence in the 
nominees and a determination to give them a hearty sup- 
port. 1 The Republican press, including the principal Seward 
organs, coupled their sorrow with hearty acquiescence in the 
convention's decision, 2 and had nothing but praise for Lin- 
coln and Hamlin and predictions of their election. 

Above all, Seward did not sulk in his tent, though his 
correspondence shows how much he felt his defeat. 3 How- 
ever, under date of May 21st, he wrote to the New York 
City Republican Committee declining an invitation to a pro- 
posed demonstration in his honor and at the same time stoi- 
cally declaring that the presentation of his name at Chi- 
cago was the act of his friends and the disappointment 
theirs, not his. He said that he had no sentiment of either 
disappointment or discontent, and that the resolutions of the 
convention were as satisfactory to him as if framed by his 
own hands ; and he saw in the candidates 

eminent and able republicans, ... I cheerfully give them a 

1 Herald, May 19, 23; Tribune, May 19; Albany Evening Journal, 
May 23. 

2 The Albany Evening Journal of May 19 said: "We place at the 
head of our columns this evening the nominations of the National Con- 
vention. They will command the united support of all those who 
cherish a devotion to the principles of the Republican party." In the 
same issue, it said: " It would be idle to attempt to disguise the disap- 
pointment which the people of this State feel at the failure of the Chi- 
cago Convention to place in nomination for President the candidate of 
their own State. But there can be no doubt that the nomination which 
was made is regarded as the very next choice of the Republicans of 
New York." See also editorials of May 23, 24, 25, 28. The New York 
Courier and Enquirer said, " we bow to the decision " (quoted by the 
Tribune, May 21. Similar extracts from up-state Republican papers 
in the same). 

' Bancroft' $ Seward, i, p. 543; F. W. Seward's Seward at Washington, 
ii, p. 454. 



269 j THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF i860 69 

sincere and earnest support. I trust, moreover, that those 
with whom I have labored so long . . . [will] . . indulge me 
in a confident belief that no sense of disappointment will be 
allowed by them to hinder or delay or in any way embarrass 
the progress of that cause . . . * 

In the early part of July, it became known that Seward 
would take the stump in behalf of Lincoln ; 2 and later, he 
did so. 

Lastly, it may be noted that Weed visited Lincoln, and 
came away apparently satisfied. Thus, though the news- 
paper war continued for a while, by the beginning of 
summer the Republican party in New York State was in 
hearty accord in support of the nominees. A few weeks 
after the election, Swett wrote to Weed : " We all feel that 
New York and the friends of Seward have acted nobly. 
They have not only done their whole duty to their party, 
but they have been most generous and magnanimous." 8 

1 Printed in the Herald, May 25. 

1 Reply to invitation of Michigan Republicans, in Herald, July 4. 

3 Swett to Weed, Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 301. 



CHAPTER III 

The Campaign of i860 in New York State 

During the summer the question of most interest in New 
York politics was whether a fusion of the various anti-Lin- 
coln parties would be effected. It was recognized, of course, 
that the division of the Democracy, if continued, would en- 
sure Republican victory; and consequently, no sooner were 
the Baltimore and Richmond * conventions adjourned than 
suggestions for running a fusion electoral ticket in North- 
ern states where there was a chance of Democratic success 
were made. 2 Most important of all to defeat Lincoln was 
New York. The loss of its thirty-five electoral votes, even 
if the Republicans carried every other Northern and every 
Western state, was sufficient to elect a Democrat or to send 
the election into the House. This could not be said of any 
other single state. 

Moreover, there were hopeful features for the Demo- 
crats, if only a fusion could be brought about. Though 
the Republicans had carried New York in 1856, there re- 
mained as an uncertain element the large vote for Fillmore 
— 124,000, or almost 21 per cent of the whole. In 1859, the 
Americans had run what was called a " balance of power " 
ticket, composed of half of the Republican and of half of 
the Democratic nominees, with the result that those on the 
Republican and balance-of-power tickets had 45,000 ma- 

1 The seceders at Charleston later met in convention at Richmond, 
and joined in the nomination of Breckinridge and Lane. See Rhodes, 
History of the United States, ii, p. 475. 

• Herald, June 25. 

70 [270 



271] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 71 

jority while those on the Democratic and balance-of-power 
tickets had 1,000 majority, showing an American strength 
of 23,000. If the stay-at-home voters at the election of 
1859 should cast their ballots at the coming contest in the 
same proportion as the votes cast in 1859 showed, the Re- 
publicans would be in an absolute minority. Then too, the 
Democratic vote for governor in 1857 compared with that 
for Buchanan in 1856 increased by 35,000, while the Re- 
publican vote decreased by 30,000 and the Know Nothing 
by 64,000. In 1859, the Democratic and American candi- 
date for secretary of state received 22,000 votes more than 
the Democratic candidate for governor in 1857, while the 
Republicans who were endorsed by the Americans received 
but 4,000 over the Republican vote of 1857. All this en- 
couraged the belief that the major part of the former Know 
Nothings were opposed to the Republicans and could be 
drawn to the support of a fusion electoral ticket in favor 
of conservative principles. 

One of the earliest and most energetic supporters of a 
united anti-Lincoln campaign was Mayor Wood. 1 At the 
end of June, he was reported as conferring with Breckin- 
ridge, Douglas, and the President upon the subject. 2 A day 
later, the press published the statement that Wood had been 
in consultation with his former arch enemy, Dean Rich- 
mond. 8 The result was a burying of the hatchet by these 
two politicians. About the same time the Mozart Hall Gen- 
eral Committee, doubtless at Wood's bidding, adopted reso- 
lutions which, while reaffirming their principles as to the 
duty of the coordinate branches of the federal government 
to protect the constitutional rights of all persons in the ter- 

1 Letter of Wood to J. J. Van Allen, printed in the Herald, July 7. 

3 Herald, June 27. 

* Herald, June 28; Tribune, June 28. 



72 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 J2 

ritories, at the same time earnestly recommended the nomi- 
nation of a joint electoral ticket, and they further declared 
that if this could not be effected, the national Democracy in 
this State ought to support Douglas inasmuch as his follow- 
ers were the most numerous of the anti-Lincoln parties in 
New York. 1 These resolutions did not go through without 
some dissent. 2 Nevertheless, the Mozart General Com- 
mittee later unanimously adopted resolutions offered by 
Wood, declaring it incumbent upon all good Democrats to 
bow to the decision made by the Democratic National Con- 
vention, " previous to any disagreement or dissension 
therein," against the regularity of the state committee 
headed by John A. Green, and " to cease hostility to the 
State organization recognized by a united National Conven- 
tion ". Moreover, by these resolutions steps were taken 
toward the election of delegates to the coming state con- 
vention, and such delegates were instructed to exert their 
influence toward accomplishing a union of all opposed to 
black republicanism upon one electoral and state ticket. 3 
Such an attitude on Mozart's part was a considerable ad- 
vance toward producing a united front against the Repub- 
licans. A conference in July, having the same object in 
view, was attended by prominent Democrats, including John 
A. Dix, Edwin Croswell, John Van Buren, Dean Rich- 
mond, Calvert Comstock, Charles O'Conor, James T. 
Brady, and Elijah F. Purdy. 4 About the same time, the 
Albany Argus declared in favor of fusion and thereafter 
repeatedly urged it. 5 , 

1 Resolutions printed in the Herald, June 30. 

2 Letter signed "Member of the Mozart Hall General Committee, 
printed in the Herald, July 2; Herald, July 14. 

3 Resolutions printed in the Herald, Aug. 3. 4 Herald, July 17. 

5 Argus, July 11. 18, 21, and throughout August. 



2^3] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 73 

The supporters of Bell and Everett, led by Washington 
Hunt, were from the very start anxious to promote fusion. 
They had much to gain by it, and nothing to lose. Running 
a separate ticket was recognized by them as hopeless, for 
they had neither the powerful press nor the excellent or-. 
ganization which the Know Nothings had in 1856. 3 The 
Bell-Everett men professed to hope that if fusion were ef- 
fected, the election would be thrown into the House, when 
Bell would have a good chance of being chosen president. 2 
With them, however, the defeat of Lincoln rather than the 
success of their own candidate was the chief aim; and it 
was quite evident that a second conservative electoral ticket 
would merely increase Lincoln's prospects of carrying New 
York. 3 

There were, however, great difficulties in the way of 
bringing about a combination of such diverse elements. The 
Douglas National Committee, at the end of June, recom- 
mended to the various state committees that the latter take 
measures to run in their respective states an electoral ticket 
pledged to the unequivocal support of Douglas and John- 
son. 4 In July, the Douglas National Executive Committee 
pronounced in favor of a " fair and square fight with the 
Breckinridge party," and declared that no compromise what- 
ever was admissible. 5 To many Douglas adherents, more- 

1 The Fillmore supporters were said to have had over fifty journals in 
New York State, whereas in August, i860, the number of New York 
papers favoring Bell were said to be no more than six, and those gen- 
erally of very limited influence {Herald, Aug. 2). 

2 Speeches of Hunt: at the Utica convention {Argus, July 14), at 
Albany {Herald, July 20), at New York City {Herald, Aug. 29); 
speech of James Brooks {Herald, July 13). 

3 Speech of Hunt justifying the fusion, Herald, Aug. 29; letter of 
Hunt to Crittenden in Chapman's Life of Crittenden, ii, pp. 217-218. 

4 Resolutions printed in the Herald, June 27. 

5 Manifesto of the Douglas National Executive Committee, printed in 
the Herald, July 19. 



74 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [274 

over, it seemed that the proposed fusion would be of little 
advantage to their candidate, for Douglas had no chance 
of an election in the House. On the other hand, many of 
the Breckinridge men were filled with bitter hatred of the 
Albany Regency because of its alleged treachery. One 
correspondent said of the southern tier of counties in this 
State : " It is difficult to determine . . . which curse the 
other the loudest and deepest, the Breckinridgers or the 
Douglasites." * 

Daniel S. Dickinson especially poured out invective upon 
the Regency leaders. At a Breckinridge meeting, he de- 
clared that those 

who ruled, and dictated to, and wielded the vote of the New 
York delegation, through the fraudulent process of a unit 
vote . . . will hereafter be known by the name plainly branded 
upon their guilty foreheads at Charleston — " political gam- 
blers " — as creatures who hang festering upon the lobbies of 
State and federal legislation to purchase chartered privilege 
and immunity by corrupt appliances ; who thrive in the foetid 
atmosphere, and swell to obese proportions like vultures upon 
offal ; office brokers, who crawl and cringe around the foot- 
steps of power, and by false pretences procure themselves or 
vile tools places of official trust . . . they have torn open again 
its [the Democratic party's] wounds to subserve their own 
selfish schemes, and now let division be the order of the day 
until these faithless " political gamblers " are driven without 
the pale of the democratic party forever. 2 

When the leading adherent of Breckinridge in this State 
talked thus, denouncing the principal politicians who sup- 
ported Douglas at such length as to fill two newspaper col- 
umns of fine print, and devoted most of the remainder of his 
speech to justifying the platform and the regularity of the 
1 Herald, July 25. ' Herald, July 19. 



275] THE CAMPAIGN 0F l86 ° 75 

Breckinridge ticket in contrast with the Douglas ticket, hav- 
ing but little to say against the Republicans, the formation 
of any alliance which should include the two wings of the 
Democracy was plainly up-hill work. 

Another obstacle to fusion was the desire of the sup- 
porters of Breckinridge for a general decapitation of Douglas 
office-holders by the national administration. 1 Of such a 
move there were rumors 2 and perhaps a beginning. 3 Of 
course, a fusion would put an end to any chance of a pro- 
scription. Moreover, it was recognized that the running of 
separate state tickets would weaken a joint electoral ticket, 
so that a complete union of those opposed to Lincoln neces- 
sitated besides the apportionment of electors a division of 
the nominations for state offices. 

The Constitutional Union Convention was the first of the 
state assemblages to meet. It made no nominations; but 
instead, under the influence of speeches by Hunt and James 
Brooks, it appointed a committee authorized to form an 
electoral ticket and in such manner as should be deemed 
" best calculated to unite the National Union men of every 
name and designation and promote the election " of Bell 

1 Herald, Aug. 21, Sept. 6. 

* Herald, May 19, July 12; Tribune, July 2. 

'Removal of U. S. Marshal Jewett {Herald, Aug. 8); three re- 
movals at Albany by Collector Schell for political reasons (Argus, July 
25); letter from a correspondent at Pultneyville, Wayne County, saying 
that the deputy-collector of that port had been removed because he sup- 
ported Douglas {Argus, July 28) ; citation from the Jamaica Democrat 
wherein the editor stated that he had been removed from office by Col- 
lector Schell because of support given to Douglas {Argus, July 19). 
The cases of Messrs. Sanders and North and that of the postmaster at 
Albion were attributed to other reasons by the Argus (July 13), and 
President Buchanan was declared guiltless of having followed a pre- 
scriptive course. Buchanan in a letter of August 11 to Halleck said, 
"I do not indulge a proscriptive spirit, and have not removed one in 
twenty of the Douglas officeholders " ( Works, ed. by Moore, x, p. 466) . 



76 HEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [276 

and Everett. 1 The names on this committee show as promi- 
nent men in the Bell-Everett movement in this State, be- 
sides Hunt and the two Brookses, William Duer, George 
Briggs, Amos H. Prescott, Lorenzo Burrows, and Solomon 
G. Havens, all of whom had held high places at the hands 
of either the Whigs or the Know Nothings. 

Next came the Breckinridge State Convention at Syra- 
cuse on August 7th. Here a further division of the De- 
mocracy was threatened by the fact that the convention met 
in response to two calls, one issued by John A. Green, chair- 
man of the state committee, and the other by Augustus 
Schell and one gentleman from each congressional district. 
A contest as to who should organize the body seemed not 
unlikely. 2 At the last moment, however, Schell yielded to 
Green. 3 A fortnight before the convention, the leading 
Breckinridge paper in the State, the New York Journal of 
Commerce/ advocated such a policy as would result in co- 
operation with the Douglas and Bell men in running an 
unpledged electoral ticket, the nominees if successful to vote 
for Douglas if their votes would elect him, but for Breckin- 
ridge or Bell if by so doing either of them might be chosen 
president. Such an arrangement, it was urged, might give 
Breckinridge the prize, whereas New York's vote could not 
elect Douglas ; if the contest went to the House, Douglas 
had no chance, while Breckinridge had a first-rate one; if 
neither the electoral colleges nor the House chose a presi- 
dent, the Senate would elect Lane vice-president and he 

1 Herald, July 13; Argus, July 14. 
^Herald, Aug. 7; Argus, Aug. 9. 

3 Herald, Aug. 8; Argus, Aug. 9. 

4 The New York World, then an independent paper, declared that the 
Journal of Commerce was the only influential Breckinridge paper in the 
State ( World, Sept. 4) . 



277J THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 yy 

would become acting president. The writer also asserted 
that a letter from Mr. Breckinridge favoring cooperation had 
been received in New York City. 1 The sentiment of the dele- 
gates, however, on the eve of the convention was strongly 
opposed to any arrangement with the supporters of Douglas, 2 
and a speech by Dickinson still further weakened the hopes 
of those who desired to leave the way open for such a step. 3 
A full set of presidential electors and a complete state ticket 
headed by James T. Brady for governor was nominated. 4 
Brady was a man of great integrity, eloquence, and legal 
learning, and of fine personality. For years he had been 
one of the leading minds of the New York bar. He was, 
apparently, neither a politician nor an office-seeker; 5 but he 
consented to lead a forlorn hope. 

The resolutions adopted by the convention equally dis- 
approved of the " plan of Abraham Lincoln for interfering 
with the rights of slaveholders in the Territories by act of 
Congress, and the plan of Stephen Arnold Douglas for in- 
terfering with them by unfriendly territorial legislation." 
After endorsing the national platform and candidates and 
Buchanan's administration, the resolutions went on to " re- 
probate and condemn in unmeasured terms the conduct of 
the controlling majority of the New York delegation in the 
National Convention at Charleston and Baltimore," and 
charged that majority with " the disruption and division of 
the Democratic party." The nominations of Douglas and 
Johnson were declared to have no semblance of regularity 
whatever. Other resolutions dealt with state questions, in- 

1 Citations from the Journal of Commerce in the Argus, July 21, 
Aug. 3. 
1 Herald, Aug. 7. 

* Herald, Aug. 8. 'Ibid. 

5 Breen's Thirty Years of New York Politics, pp. 321, 322. 



78 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [278 

eluding the canals and railroad charters. 1 A resolution to 
appoint a committee to confer with similar bodies for the 
purpose of uniting upon one electoral ticket in opposition 
to the Republicans, with power to substitute others for those 
nominated by the convention, was overwhelmingly defeated. 
Later, through the pleading of a few, a resolution was 
adopted empowering the state committee to confer, if it 
deemed it proper to do so, with any other committee ap- 
pointed for the purpose, in order to consolidate upon the 
principles enunciated by the convention in its platform those 
opposed to the Republican electoral ticket. 2 Of course, no 
cooperation was possible — and probably none was hoped 
for — on the basis demanded, since it could not have been 
expected that the Douglas wing, having possession of the 
regular state and county organizations as well as control of 
nearly all the influential papers in New York, would yield 
their principles to a minority. Thus, the action of the 
Breckinridge men did not augur harmony in the Democratic 
ranks. 

A week later the Douglas State Convention assembled. 
After the temporary organization had been effected, ex- 
Governor Seymour entertained the gathering with a speech 
assailing the Republican administration of the State and 
pleading for attention to ills at home. New York City, he 
said, had been oppressed and deprived of self-government, 
while the State had been heavily burdened with taxation 
and "stood disgraced amongst her sister States of the Con- 
federacy by the corruptions of her legislatures for the past 
two years ;" and he attributed all this to the fact that " the 
people have been paying so much attention to the affairs of 
other States that they have neglected the interests of their 

1 Herald, Aug. 9. 

a Herald, Aug. 9; Tribune, Aug. 10. 



279 ] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 79 

own." 1 The customary contest between Tammany and 
Mozart was compromised by admitting both delegations 
upon an equality, much to Tammany's indignation. When 
the report recommending this settlement was adopted, Tam- 
many withdrew for consultation. Later the braves returned ; 
but presented a protest setting forth Tammany's exclusive 
claims to regularity and stating that in view of the crisis 
threatening the Democratic party and the country, Tam- 
many would retain seats in the convention and would sup- 
port its nominees, but would cast no vote therein. 2 

William Kelly was nominated for governor by acclama- 
tion, and the rest of the state ticket was disposed of quickly. 3 
Kelly had retired from business in New York City in the 
forties and since then had devoted himself to farming in 
Dutchess County, where he had a model establishment. Be- 
sides having sat in the state senate, he had been president of 
the State Agricultural Society, trustee of the State Agri- 
cultural College, and interested in various charitable, edu- 
cational, and commercial enterprises. 4 Now he was set up 
as the " farmer's candidate." B His " private virtues " were 
recognized by the chief organ of his opponents in the heat 
of the campaign. 6 

A more important matter was that of presidential elec- 
tors. A committee of the Bell-Everett party was present 
to arrange a fusion; and after extended negotiations, 
a joint ticket was formed whereby the Bell-Everettites 
were given ten of the nominations for electors. The 

1 Herald, Aug. 16. 2 Herald, Aug. 16. 

3 William F. Allen was nominated for lieutenant-governor and Wil- 
liam C. Rhodes for state prison inspector by acclamation; William W. 
Wright was named for canal commissioner {Herald, Aug. 16) . 

* Argus, Oct. 1. 

5 The Argus urged its readers to "vote for Kelly, the Farmer's Can- 
didate." 

* Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 20. 



80 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [280 

resolutions condemned the doctrines of the Republicans 
and of the Breckinridge supporters alike, and declared 
that in case of a struggle "we will stand by the Union against 
disunion." The Republican administration of the State and 
the proposed constitutional amendment abolishing the prop- 
erty qualification for negro voters were warmly denounced. 
In order to bring about cooperation to defeat Lincoln, the 
state committee was authorized to fill any vacancy that 
might occur on the electoral or state tickets and to take 
proper measures to give " united expression and effect to the 
national conservative sentiment of the State." * 

Immediately after the convention, a controversy arose 
among the adherents of the new allies. Brooks ~ and Hunt, 3 
representing the Bell-Everettites, declared that their ten 
electors, if chosen, would be free to vote for the Constitu- 
tional Union candidates. On the other hand, Oswald Otten- 
dorfer, a Douglas nominee for elector and editor of the New 
York Staats Zeitung, asserted that the distinct understand- 
ing was that all on the electoral ticket should vote for 
Douglas. 4 Irish Democratic papers claimed the same. 5 The 
Tammany Hall General Committee ratified the Douglas 
nominees " in full faith and confidence that every person 
whose name is on the ticket will, if elected, vote for Stephen 
A. Douglas." G The Tribune maliciously asked, " What do 
the Bell-Everettites say to this?" 7 and it aptly labelled the 
arrangement " the confusion ticket." Meanwhile the ten 

1 Herald, Aug. 15, 16, 17. 

2 Extract from the New York Express in the Tribune, Aug. 29. 
'Speech of Hunt in New York City, Herald, Aug. 29. 

4 Extract from Staats Zeitung, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 22. 

5 New York Freeman s Journal, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 24; 
New York Irish American, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 27. 

6 Tribune, Aug. 24. ' Ibid. 



2 8!] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 8 1 

Bell-Everett candidates remained silent as to their inten- 
tions. 1 

A partial union of the " conservative " men in this State 
had now been effected, but the Breckinridge supporters were 
not so easily fused. Though both of the Democratic state 
conventions had left a way open for a coalition, though both 
of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in their letters 
of acceptance had intimated their willingness to withdraw, 2 
yet the two factions came to an agreement on the electors 
after the hard work of the campaign should already have 
been begun, and then only after much negotiation and 
recrimination, many delays and cautious advances. The 
strongest pressure against continuing the division came from 
New York City, 3 whose public opinion finally forced an un- 
willing union. Yet even in the metropolis there continued 
to be opposition to such a step.* Moreover, the attitude of 
the Breckinridge State Committee was especially hostile to 
fusion, and at a meeting soon after the Douglas State Con- 
vention, the committee refused to make any advance. 5 The 
Douglas State Committee at the end of August took the in- 
itiative by appointing a conference committee consisting of 
Benjamin Wood and two others. 6 Soon after, a number of 
prominent adherents of Breckinridge visited Washington 
to consult, it was reported, with General Lane and with the 

1 New York Evening Post, Aug. 28. 

'Letter of acceptance of Brady {Herald, Aug. 30); letter of accept- 
ance of Kelly {Herald, Sept. 11). 
1 Herald, Sept. 11; New York World (then independent), Sept. 4. 

* Editorial from a Douglas organ, the Sunday Mercury, printed in 
the Tribune, Sept. 10; extract from the Staats Zeitung, printed in the 
Tribune, Sept. 18. 

''Herald, Aug. 22; confirmed by the Argus, Sept. 12. 

* Herald, Aug. 31; Argus, Sept. 1. 



82 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [282 

administration in regard to fusion. 1 Evidently the decision 
was favorable to a coalition on satisfactory terms. 

Immediately following the return of the Breckinridge men, 
their state committee met at the Astor House in New York 
City, while the conferees appointed by the Douglas State 
Committee met at the Metropolitan. The Douglas men re- 
quested a conference, to which the Breckinridgers acceded, 
appointing for this purpose a sub-committee of three headed 
by John A. Green. In conference, the two sub-committees 
haggled in vain, the Breckinridge men finally demanding 
ten electors and two places on the state ticket, and the 
Douglas men offering five electors and two state nomina- 
tions or six electors and one place on the state ticket. Then 
the Breckinridge State Committee adjourned after authoriz- 
ing its chairman to arrange a fusion upon the rejected 
terms. Wood, finding that the other side was obdurate, 
notified Green that the proposition of the Breckinridge State 
Committee would be favorably reported to the Douglas 
State Committee. 2 The Breckinridge State Committee, 
however, had meanwhile departed, and Green purposely 
avoided — so the press reports said — receiving the message 
of Wood. 3 Before adjourning, the Breckinridge men issued 
an address putting the blame for the failure to agree on the 
Douglas conferees, and concluding : " We ask the more 
than one hundred thousand old adamantine hard-shell na-r 
tional democrats of this State, will you desert your party 
now, to follow Richmond and Cagger, and their Know 

1 Herald, Sept. 6; address of the Breckinridge State Committee, 
printed in the Herald, Sept. 17. 

2 Herald, Sept. 8, 11; Wood'sreport to the Douglas State Committee 
printed in the Herald, Sept. 15; Address of the Breckinridge State 
Committee printed in the Herald, Sept. 17. 

3 Argus, Sept. 12; also quotations therein from the New York News 
and the New York Day Book. 



283] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 83 

Nothing allies, on the road towards the free soil republican 
camp ? " x The Regency organ, on the other hand, claimed 
that the Breckinridge committee was insincere and that it 
desired to prevent fusion by " insisting upon impossible 
terms, by irritating language, and by the interposition of all 
possible obstacles and stratagems." 2 

The Douglas men could not afford to incur the odium of 
throwing New York's vote to Lincoln, they were anxious 
to save the local, state, and congressional tickets, and a part 
of the commercial and financial class of New York City — 
an important source of campaign contributions — was 
strongly in favor of fusion. 3 On the other hand, Richmond 
probably did not care to strengthen the new machine oper- 
ated by Green. The objects of the Regency would be at- 
tained if the majority of the Breckinridge followers should 
be won over by some mode other than making an arrange- 
ment with the Green committee. When the Douglas State 
Committee met in mid-September, a resolution acceding to 
the Breckinridge proposal was defeated by a vote of seven 
to five, the nays including Richmond and Cagger. 4 A dele- 
gation from the Volunteer Democratic Association, a body 
of New York merchants who were supposed " to furnish the 
sinews of war, and take their pay in Southern trade," 5 ap- 
peared before the committee and urged that to effect a united 
front, ten Breckinridge men should be placed upon the 
electoral ticket and two upon the state ticket. While this 
request was refused, the committee before adjourning gave 

1 Address of the Breckinridge State Committee printed in the Herald, 
Sept. 17. 

2 Argus, Sept. 12. s Herald, Sept. 15. 
4 Herald, Sept. 15; Argus, Sept. 18. 

6 Tribune, Sept. 15. 

6 Argus, Sept. 18, containing reply of Peter Cagger, Secretary to 
John T. Henry, Chairman. 



84 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [284 

full power in the whole matter to a sub-committee con- 
sisting of Richmond, Cagger, and one other. 1 These three, 
after consultation with some merchants and New York 
City supporters of Breckinridge, adopted a plan which satis- 
fied Richmond's conflicting aims. 2 The mercantile and 
moneyed interests and the Breckinridge vote in the metro- 
politan district, where alone in the State, Breckinridge had 
any important strength, were appeased, without, however, 
any recognition of the Green organization. 

At a monster meeting of those opposed to the Republican 
party and its principles, held in New York City on Sep- 
tember 17th, and presided over by Joshua J. Henry, a mer- 
chant in the Southern dry-goods trade and the leading spirit 
in the Volunteer Democratic Association, a resolution was 
adopted for the appointment of a committee of fifteen which 
should form a fusion electoral ticket. 3 This committee in- 
cluded Charles O'Conor, Edwin Croswell, Samuel J. Tilden, 
and Peter B. Sweeney. 4 The fifteen, unable to satisfy the 
conflicting demands of Green and Richmond, finally decided 
upon a settlement of its own, by which four of the names on 
the Breckinridge ticket, including Henry S. Randall for 
elector-at-large, and three other Breckinridge men from New 
York City were substituted for seven on the Douglas list. 6 
The committee made no attempt to arrange a fusion on the 
state ticket, regarding that as beyond its powers. It recom- 
mended, however, that a concession be made to the sup- 
porters of Breckinridge by the nomination of one of their 
number for lieutenant-governor. 6 The electoral ticket thus 

1 Herald, Sept. 15; Argus, Sept. 18. * Herald, Sept. 17. 

* Herald, Sept. 18. * Herald, Sept. 20. 

5 Herald, Sept. 25, including the official report of the committee of 
fifteen. 

6 Argus, Oct. 9, quoting the New York Journal of Commerce . 



285 j THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 85 

proposed consisted of eighteen Douglas, ten Bell, and seven 
Breckinridge adherents. Letters were then sent to Richmond 
and Green requesting their ratification of the arrangement. 1 
Richmond's committee agreed to this, substituting in place 
of nominees who conveniently stepped aside all the pro- 
posed names except that of Henry S. Randall, who had al- 
ready denounced the negotiations for fusion. 2 Another 
Breckinridge man, Greene C. Bronson, corporation counsel 
of New York City and a former chief judge of the Court 
of Appeals, was inserted in Randall's stead. 3 William C. 
Crain, ex-speaker of the assembly and a supporter of Breck- 
inridge, was named by the committee for lieutenant-gov- 
ernor upon the declination of Judge Allen. 4 The State 
Executive Committee of the Constitutional Union party also 
accepted the arrangement. 5 At another great meeting in 
New York City on October 8th, the committee of fifteen 
ticket as amended by Dean Richmond's committee was en- 
thusiastically adopted. 6 On the following day the candi- 
dates for elector on the Breckinridge ticket met at the call of 
John A. Green, and declined the nominations on that ticket. 
Green's state committee then convened and accepted the 
declinations, at the same time issuing an address to the 
national Democrats of New York, declaring that neither 
their principles nor their organization were abandoned, but 
that the fusion ticket was accepted as the best chance of 
electing Breckinridge. They further said that they would 
keep their state ticket in the field ; and, after denouncing the 

1 Herald, Sept. 26. 

2 See letter of Randall, quoted infra. 

3 Resolutions of the Douglas State Committee, printed in the Argus, 
Oct. 4. 

4 Resolutions of the Douglas State Committee, Argus, Oct. 4. 

5 Herald, Oct. 6. 6 Herald, Oct. 9. 



86 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [286 

New York Central Railroad and the Albany Regency, the 
address concluded with the fling, " Nor does the repute of 
their new allies, the Know Nothing leaders, elevate the 
character of the alliance." At the same time, the friends of 
Breckinridge were advised to perfect their local organization 
and to place in nomination candidates for local offices. 1 

Thus it was the middle of October before this partial 
fusion was effected. Pennsylvania had by that time gone 
Republican in its state election, and the sole hope for Lin- 
coln's opponents was now New York. Yet the Breckinridge 
committee acceded to the coalition with recriminations and 
reproaches for their new allies. Since Douglas had no 
chance of election by the House, a union on the state ticket 
was the kind of fusion which alone would have been of value 
to the Richmond organization ; but the Breckinridge men re- 
fused to withdraw Brady and his associates. The mutual 
bickerings, prolonged for so long a time, could not but 
weaken the prospects of the Democrats. 2 

The Republicans, on the other hand, although for a while 
slightly distracted by an intermittent warfare between 
Greeley and his enemies, 3 were nevertheless quite harmon- 
ious compared to their opponents. It is true that just before 
the Republican State Convention at Syracuse in the latter 
part of August, Greeley had made in the Tribune an on- 
slaught on Weed, connecting him with the corruption of the 

1 Herald, Oct. 10. 

"August Belmont in a letter to John Forsyth, written shortly after 
the election, described this as one the chief causes of the defeat of the 
fusion ticket (Belmont's Letters, Speeches and Addresses, p. 37). 

s Even after the convention, Greeley and Weed kept denouncing each 
other {e.g., Tribune, Aug. 28). Greeley personally interfered against 
the reelection of Speaker Littlejohn, charging him with corruption, 
while Raymond entered the lists in behalf of the Speaker ( Tribune, 
Oct. 23; Herald, Oct. 25). Later, Littlejohn sued Greeley for libel 
{Herald, Dec. 6). 



2 g^] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 87 

Legislature of i860. Greeley was not alone in his desire to 
cleanse the party from any taint which might have arisen 
from the doings at Albany, many Republicans openly re- 
pudiating the acts of their representatives at the past ses- 
sion. 1 The matter seemed likely to be the subject of a 
struggle in the convention between Weed's supporters and 
his adversaries. 2 Dana and Field were active among the 
latter, but the anti-Weed men were in the minority. In the 
end, the convention proceeded with its work harmoniously. 
A resolution drafted by Field was toned down so as to de- 
nounce merely the attempt to fasten upon the Republican 
party the odium of profligate legislation, declaring that the 
jobs lately put through at Albany could not have been passed 
without the almost unanimous support of the Democratic 
members, and condemning official corruption generally. 
Besides the ratification of the Chicago nominations and plat- 
form, and the usual praise of the Republican state adminis- 
tration and of the Republican canal policy, a plank was 
adopted declaring that the people should watch the use made 
of franchises to corporate bodies and enforce necessary re- 
strictions upon them. 3 

Headed by Edwin D. Morgan and Robert Campbell, both 
renominated by acclamation though Campbell's name was 
probably a bitter pill for Weed, 4 the slate went through 

1 Report of a meeting of the Republican editors from the interior of 
the State {Herald, Aug. 23) ; letter to Governor Morgan, thanking him 
for using his veto against " the dangerous schemes of the late Legisla- 
ture," signed by a number of well-known Republicans (Tribune, May 
9); resolutions of the Brooklyn Rocky Mountain Club (Herald, April 
27); resolution of the Brooklyn Seventh Ward Republican Association 
{Tribune, Aug. 17). 

1 Herald, Aug. 22. * Herald, Aug. 23. 

* Ante, chapter i, confirmed by many statements scattered in the 
press, e.g., Herald, Aug. 23; Tribune, Aug. 25. When E. Delafield 
Smith moved the unanimous nomination of E. D. Morgan for gover- 



88 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 2 88 

smoothly. The nominations for electors were divided among 
the various elements of which the party was composed, 
William Cullen Bryant who was of radical Democratic ante- 
cedents and James O. Putnam a prominent former Ameri- 
can being selected for electors-at-large. 1 The results of the 
convention apparently showed that, despite his defeat at 
Chicago, Weed still had some degree of control over the 
party in this State. 

It is very probable that New York, despite the formation 
of what the Tribune labeled the " hybrid, tesselated, three- 
legged anti-Republican ticket," 2 was safe for Lincoln from 
the beginning of the contest. Yet, that the campaign in this 
State after the fusion had been accomplished was a hard 
fought one was later attested by Greeley, who spoke of it as 
" a struggle as intense, as vehement, and energetic, as had 
ever been known." 3 The Democrats put some hope in this 
desperate chance when no other was left. It is true that in 
1856, the Republicans had been aided by a peculiar enthu- 
siasm for the candidate, by the new-born zeal for a great 
cause, by the climax of the Kansas struggle, and by activity 
in the pulpit and the religious press — all of which were 
largely or wholly absent in i860. In September of the latter 
year, the Republican press of New York showed signs of 
alarm. It was asserted that the party was overconfident and 

nor, James S. Wadsworth moved to amend by nominating at the same 
time and by the same vote Robert Campbell for lieutenant-governor. 
As Wadsworth was an anti- Weed man, this looks like a clever move on 
the part of Weed's adversaries. After the convention, however, Weed 
denied his hostility to Campbell, and declared, " We went to Syracuse 
anticipating and prepared for the renomination of our present Governor 
and Lieutenant-Governor" (Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 27). 

1 Herald, Aug. 23. 

' Tribune, July 11. Of course, at that date, the formation of such a 
ticket was not accomplished but merely anticipated. 

'Greeley's American Conflict, i, p. 326. 



2 g 9 ] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 89 

sunk in lethargy. After the middle of September, however, 
the outlook for the Republicans in this State brightened; 
and with the October elections, the weakness of the anti- 
Lincoln ticket became daily more apparent. 

The fusion itself proved a source of weakness to the allies. 
The Republicans not only assailed and ridiculed such an in- 
congruous coalition, but also took good care to remind na- 
turalized Irish and German as well as Roman Catholic citi- 
zens, of the former Know Nothing activities of some of the 
fusion electoral candidates. 1 Then too, the Republicans 
were inspired with new vigor by the union of their oppo- 
nents. From up the State came reports of hostility and 
disgust on the part of both factions of the Democracy 
toward the ticket, and it seems probable that many Demo- 
cratic votes were for that reason cast for Lincoln. 2 In 
the middle of October, the New York Herald, an ardent 
advocate of a combination of the anti-Lincoln forces, as- 
serted that there was no genuine fusion between the two 
Democratic wings and that the breach between them had 
widened since the October elections. 3 Dickinson, as late 
as October 18th, having come around so far that he appealed 
for support of the fusion ticket, did so on the ground that its 
success might make possible the choice of Breckinridge and 
that no other candidate could expect to be helped by it. 4 

1 E. g., Raymond's speech at Brooklyn (Albany Evetring Journal, 
Oct. 10); various editorials in the Albany Evening Journal during Sep- 
tember and October. 

3 Herald, Oct. 30, Nov. 1; Brooklyn Eagle (Dem.), quoted in the 
Tribtme, Nov. 10; letter written by one whom the Argus described as 
a "gentleman of long and honorable service in the party," saying, 
"In my judgment this coalition cost us thousands of votes in this 
State " (Argus, Nov. 21). 

3 Herald, Oct. 19. 

4 Letter of Dickinson to John A. Green (Herald, Oct. 22). 



9 o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [290 

Brady gave utterance to the same sentiments. 1 Henry S. 
Randall correctly described the situation when he wrote: 

Enthusiasm won't stay at a red heat during a long train of 
protocols and conferences. . . Our columns were arrayed for 
battle, and looked to see the signal. Bah ! They saw a little 
white flag crossing and recrossing between us and our foes. 
And this has been kept up until cowards have had time to 
look for the strongest side, until the ardor of our bravest has 
been chilled ! For why should they strike gallantly against 
those who may to-morrow be allies, and who, though allies 
will not forget the present blow ? 2 

Besides issues which were common to the whole land, 
there were in New York several less important matters re- 
lating more especially to this State which received atten- 
tion during the campaign. Democratic speakers and news- 
papers 3 assailed the corruption of the last legislature. 
" While public attention has been directed to remote ob- 
jects," said Washington Hunt, 

and a fictitious alarm excited lest slavery should invade lati- 
tudes where negroes are frozen in the winter months, our 
people have been too neglectful of the duties of self-govern- 
ment. . . . Corruption stalks abroad. ... If we can believe 
their own organs, the friends of freedom have introduced the 
slave trade into the halls of our Capitol. Worst of all, they 
have been selling white men and the representatives of white 
men. Legislation bought and sold — bills passed or defeated 

1 Herald, Oct. 23. 

'Letter of Randall, printed in the Tribune, Oct. 3. On the other 
hand, a Douglas adherent wrote: "... in spite of ourselves, in spite 
of the better sense of our State Central Committee, we were forced into 
an association with disunionists. . . . What remained of the enthusiasm 
which had existed for Judge Douglas and his principles, was crushed 
out, . . ." (Letter referred to in note 2, supra, p. 89). 

% E.g., Argus, Sept. 13, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, Oct. 1,6, 12, 15, Nov. 3. 



2 9I ] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 9 1 

to suit the highest bidder — bribery the order of the day — such 
is the hideous picture presented to the people of our noble 
State. 1 

The Republicans could only put forth denunciations of all 
corruption and endeavor to shift the blame upon the Demo- 
crats who had voted for the obnoxious acts. Secondly, the 
Republicans were charged with greatly increasing the state 
taxes for canals through the abandonment of the Demo- 
cratic policy of pay as you go for one of borrowing. In this 
connection, the Democrats asked, somewhat inconsistently, 2 
who was responsible for the five and a half million dollars 
tax of that year. " Every household in the State," said the 
Argus, " feels the oppression of the reckless, extravagant, 
and profligate policy inaugurated by Seward and Ruggles, 3 
which has fastened upon us the incubus of debt and taxa- 
tion." 4 Thirdly, the proposed amendment to the state con- 
stitution, abolishing the property suffrage qualification for 
negroes, was denounced by the Democrats. 5 

The great mercantile interests of New York City were for 
the most part a source of strength to the anti-Lincoln ticket. 
It was the merchants who took the lead in effecting the 
fusion. Fernando Wood 6 and Yancey of Alabama 7 in 

1 Herald, Aug. 29. 

'Inconsistently, because they had strenuously opposed measures de- 
signed to avoid the necessity of resorting to direct taxation for this 
purpose. 

s For this, see Weed, Autobiography, pp. 458-9. 

4 Argus, Oct. 19. Other similar editorials, Oct. 3, 5, 9 (where it 
speaks of "Republican profligacy" and "Republican dishonesty and 
grand larceny"), 12, 22, 25. The Albany Evening Journal (Oct. 22) 
in reply claimed that the Republicans had not control over the canal 
administration during the four preceding years, and hence were not re- 
sponsible for the increased taxation. 

% E.g., Argus, Aug. 27, Sept. 5, 7, Oct. 1, Nov. 1, 2. 

• Herald, Sept. 18. T Herald, Oct. 11. 



92 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [292 

speeches at New York dwelt upon the importance from the 
business point of view of defeating- Lincoln. The New York 
Herald kept emphasizing the same argument, and held 
before the merchants " the prospect of a staggering blow to 
the commercial and financial interests of New York," should 
Lincoln be successful. 1 Immediately before the election, the 
same paper printed a series of special appeals to the various 
trades having much at stake in Southern business. To the 
hotel keepers, it said : " If the relations between North and 
South are disturbed, as they will be by Lincoln's election, 
your houses will be half empty. ..." To the ship car- 
penters, it urged : " Don't forget that if Lincoln is not de- 
feated at the polls to-day your trade is gone to the dogs . . . 
no more ships for the Southern trade will be built here." 
Similar arguments were addressed to the builders, milliners, 
shoemakers, carriage makers, and tailors. 2 After the elec- 
tion, the Tribune spoke of the " very general enlistment of 
the Mercantile and Capitalist classes in the Fusion cause 
by shrieks of apprehension that the Union was about to be 
dissolved in case of Lincoln's election " as a " salient feature 
of the canvass," and said further : " Nothing like it has been 
seen since the Bank Controversy of 1832-8; and even that 
did not compare in the intensity and unanimity of the com- 
mercial furor with that [of i860]." 3 This, however, while 
mainly true, was an exaggeration. The Republicans sought 
— and with some success — to win over the business commu- 
nity by pointing out the dangerous consequences to those en- 
gaged in mercantile pursuits, if the election were thrown into 
the House, involving probably excitement and political un- 

1 Herald, Sept. 24. 

2 Herald, Nov. 6. This argument was not confined to the metropolis; 
the Argus (Nov. 1) made a similar appeal to the workingmen of Albany. 
5 Tribune, Nov. 8. 



2 g$] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 93 

rest far worse than that which had attended the election of 
speaker in the previous year. 1 This argument was a telling 
one. 2 

Taking the State as a whole, the Republicans had the 
advantage in better organization, more enthusiasm, more 
and better attended meetings, and superior talent on the plat- 
form. Long before the presidential nominations were made, 
they had in the first half of the year undertaken a campaign 
of education at Cooper Institute, where successive meetings 
were addressed by Frank Blair, Cassius M. Clay, Abraham 
Lincoln, and John Sherman. 3 After the battle proper was 
joined, other eminent men, including Carl Schurz, Senators 
Wade, Sumner, Hale, Doolittle, and Wilson, Galusha A. 
Grow, Thaddeus Stevens, Oliver P. Morton, Owen Love- 
joy, and Salmon P. Chase, were imported, most of them 
speaking a number of times ; while of New Yorkers, Seward, 
besides going West to stump for Lincoln, spoke six times for 
that cause within this State, and Greeley, George William 
Curtis, William Cullen Bryant, David Dudley Field, Henry 
B. Stanton, Henry J. Raymond, James O. Putnam, and 

1 E. g., Albany Eveni?ig Journal, Oct. 22, 24, Nov. 3. 

1 Herald, Nov. 6: letter of Seymour to Crittenden (Chapman's Life 
of Crittenden, ii, pp. 254-5): "Thousands and thousands voted for the 
Lincoln ticket in this State, who had no partiality for, or confidence in 
republican doctrines. They, however, judged that success of the Union 
ticket here would, at best, throw the election into the House and pos- 
sibly result, after bitter animosity, finally in the selection of Mr. Lane 
by the Senate. From their point of observation this large class re- 
garded . . . the election by the people of a candidate they did not ap- 
prove, less disastrous than a long, embittered, congressional contest." 
Similar testimony was given by August Belmont in a letter of Novem- 
ber 22, i860, to John Forsyth (Belmont's Letters, etc., p. 37). That all 
the big merchants and capitalists of the metropolis were not for the 
fusion ticket is seen from the Wall Street meeting in favor of Lincoln 
(Herald, Nov. 6) . 

s Herald, Jan. 26, Feb. 16, 27, April 14. 



94 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [294 

Daniel Ullman were other prominent names on the lists of 
speakers. The Tribune thought that two thousand would 
be a low estimate of the number of Republican speeches de- 
livered in the interior of the State during a single week. 1 

The Democrats had nothing to compare with such ac- 
tivity. 2 Hunt, Brady, Amasa J. Parker, James S. Thayer, 
and Fernando Wood were among their speakers; of out- 
siders, Douglas traversed the State in September, attended 
a monster barbecue at Jones' Wood in New York City, and 
made speeches there and at Troy, Glens Falls, Albany, El- 
mira, Clifton Springs, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, 
besides briefer addresses at various way stations. 3 Her- 
schell V. Johnson went through the central counties, speak- 
ing at nine places; William L. Yancey addressed several 
meetings; General Ewing, ex-Governor Brown, and Felix 
K. Zollicoffer, all of Tennessee, stumped the State; while 
among those who spoke here at least once were Vallandig- 
ham, Logan and Richardson of Illinois, and Foote of Mis- 
sissippi. 

After the middle of October, there came from all over 
New York reports of Democratic apathy and of Republican 
activity. 4 The Wide-Awakes were very numerous in this 
State, Wide-Awake halls and wigwams were dedicated at 
various places, 5 and Wide-Awake torchlight processions 

1 Tribune, Nov. 3. 

2 " They [the Republicans] have an army of spouters stumping the 
State in every direction . . . The opposition . . . have only three or 
four stragglers on the stump ..." (Albany correspondence, Herald, 
Oct. 20) ; a Herald editorial of Oct. 22 gives similar testimony. 

3 Argus, Sept. 17, 18, 20, 21. 

* Herald, Oct. 20, 25, 30, Nov. 1,3. Of course, the Argus files give 
the opposite impression; but as the Argus was so plainly partisan and 
as the Herald was anti-Lincoln, the latter's admissions are deemed the 
better evidence. 

5 In New York City, Tribune, Aug. 9; Herald, Sept. 11; in Brooklyn, 



295] THE CAMPAIGN OF i860 95 

formed a noteworthy feature of the campaign here as else- 
where. An article in the anti-Lincoln New York Herald 
declared that " the character and standing of many mem- 
bers of our community who have joined in this movement, 
bearing torches as privates in the ranks, give it a weight 
and importance heretofore unknown to any political order. 
Merchants, lawyers, doctors, and members of all trades and 
professions seem to have caught the infection. . . ." x On 
the other hand, there were Democratic uniformed organiza- 
tions formed throughout the State, known usually as "Little 
Giant " clubs. They, too, were equipped with cap, cape, and 
torch, had the same functions as the Wide-Awakes, and at- 
tained some of the latter's discipline and enthusiasm. 2 There 
were also Douglas and Johnson clubs and Bell-Everett uni- 
formed organizations called Union Sentinels and Minute 
Men. According to the New York Herald, however, none 
of these were comparable to the Wide-Awakes in drill, 
appearance, or numbers. 3 

Moreover, the Republicans had confidence, whereas the 
Democrats were dejected by their poor prospects 4 and later 
by their disastrous defeat in the October elections. 5 An- 
other handicap to the Democrats was their rival local and 

Tribune, Aug. 11, Sept. 25; in Jamaica, Tribune, June 28; at Catskill, 
Tribune, Sept. 11; at Owego, Tribune, July 16; at Lockport, Tribune, 
July 23; at Brushville, Tribune, July 26; at Haverstraw, Tribune, July 
26; at Troy, Tribune, July 27; at Syracuse, Tribune, Aug. II. 

1 Herald, Sept. 19. 

2 Many instances of uniformed clubs of '' Little Giants" are referred 
to in the files of the Argus. A description of the Albany regiment of 
such clubs is given in the Argus of Aug. 4. In some places, Giants' 
castles, corresponding to the Wide-Awake wigwams, were erected. 

3 Herald, Sept. 29. 

4 The Argus kept urging upon its readers that New York could be 
carried, if proper efforts were made. 

5 Belmont's Letters, p. 37. 



96 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL IV AR [296 

congressional tickets in some parts of the State. Of course, 
New York City had the most confused field. 1 Speaking of 
the numerous candidates there, a newspaper article said : 
" To a stranger this indiscriminate nomination presents very 
much the appearance of a general training day amongst the 
militia, in which the officers are very far in excess of the 
main body of the army ; it is, however, one of the peculiari- 
ties of political life in New York in i860." 2 

It is impossible to determine how the former American 
vote divided. There are indications, though, aside from the 
results of the election, that the greater part of those who 
supported Fillmore in 1856 voted for Lincoln in i860. 8 
Among the prominent former Americans of New York who 
came out for Lincoln were Daniel Ullman and G. A. 
Scroggs, respectively candidates for governor and lieutenant- 
govenor in 1854; E. R. Jewett, chief manager of the Fill- 
more campaign; H. D. Northrup, once president of the 
American State Council; James O. Putnam, late state sen- 
ator, and Amos H. Prescott, the latest president of the 
American State Council. 4 

Near the close of the campaign, an attempt to frighten 
voters from supporting Lincoln was made by stirring up a 
financial panic. The Herald — the paper which then had the 
largest circulation within the metropolis — said : " The pre- 
monitory symptoms of a financial revulsion are upon us. 

1 List of candidates in New York City and County (Herald, Oct. 22). 

1 Herald, Oct. 17. 

s A number of signed n'otices of former Americans supporting Lincoln 
appeared in the Albany Evening- Journal, e. g., one signed by 412 men 
of Rochester (Sept. 8), a similar letter signed by 125 Albany electors 
(Sept. 10), etc. The statement in the text is confirmed by Rhodes' 
History of the United States, ii, p. 498. 

4 Tribune, Aug. 9, Oct. 3, 10, 16. Prescott apparently changed dur- 
ing the campaign. 



297] THE CAMPAIGN 0F l86 ° 97 

. . . They are visible everywhere. . . . Nor can we com- 
prehend how we can possibly escape a general financial earth- 
quake in the event of Lincoln's election." 1 This was fol- 
lowed by similar editorials on the succeeding days. 2 It 
was asserted by Republican organs, on the other hand, that 
a combination had been formed by capitalists and banks to 
call in simultaneously loans and thus, helped on by the cry 
that a dissolution of the Union was inevitable in case of Lin- 
coln's success, create a panic; also that Secretary Cobb — 
who about that time was in New York City — had declared 
that disunion was certain in case Lincoln was elected; and 
lastly that Collector Schell had said, " One more turn of the 
screw will fetch 'em." 3 Stocks fell heavily, but the tide 
was not turned. The fusion vote in New York City was 
but a slight increase over the combined Buchanan and Fill- 
more vote; while Lincoln had 15,000 more there than Fre- 
mont. 

Lincoln's majority in the State was over 50,000. Mor- 
gan received 63,000 and Campbell 68,000 more votes than 
the candidates on the Regency ticket; while Brady polled 
almost 20,000 votes. 4 Of twenty-seven counties lost by Fre- 
mont, only ten went against Lincoln, and every one of these 
by greatly reduced majorities. In Albany County, the ma- 
jority against the Republicans was decreased between six 
and seven thousand, in Kings almost ten thousand, and in 
New York almost eighteen thousand. Queens showed a 
change of over two thousand in favor of the Republicans, 

1 Herald, Oct. 30. 

'/The Albany Argus also contained editorials of similar character 
'.Oct. 23, 24, 26, 29, 30). 

8 Tribune, Oct. 26; Courier and Enquirer, quoted in the Herald, 
Oct. 31; Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 24, 26, 27, 29; Rhodes' His- 
tory of the United States, ii, p. 500. 

* Albany Evening Journal Almanac for 1861. 



9 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [298 

Erie almost eight thousand, Rensselaer nearly four thou- 
sand, and Ulster about seven thousand. The whole State 
showed a Republican gain over the figures for 1856 of 
almost 1 00,000. x 

Nevertheless, the proposed constitutional amendment re- 
lating to negro suffrage was defeated by over 140,000. 
Almost 140,000 voters, or over twenty per cent of the whole 
number, failed to cast a ballot for or against the amendment. 
In Buffalo, Syracuse, and Oswego, it was lost, while New 
York City with 25,000 votes for Lincoln gave the amend- 
ment but 1 ,600. Even in the nineteen counties where it was 
carried, the majorities were greatly below those for the Re- 
publican electoral candidates. As the vote against the 
amendment exceeded the vote for the fusion electoral ticket 
by 30,000, many supporters of Lincoln must have cast their 
ballots against an extension of negro suffrage. 2 

'Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 13. 

* Argus, Dec. 10, 12. The majority against the amendment showed 
but a slight increase over the majority against a similar proposed amend- 
ment in 1846; in that year, but nine counties were carried for the pro- 
posal; in i860, nineteen. 



CHAPTER IV 

New York Politics at the Eve of the Civil War 

The advance of the Southern secession movement during 
November and December, i860, affected New York politics 
in several important directions. The appalling difficulties 
which stared the nation in the face with no visible way of 
avoiding them called for the highest statesmanship, which, 
with the exception of Lincoln's prudent course, was con- 
spicuously lacking almost everywhere. And so it was in 
New York. Politicians blundered there as elsewhere. 
Most colossal of all the errors made then was Greeley's 
famous editorials acknowledging the right to secede as a 
revolutionary one and insisting upon letting the cotton states 
go in peace if they should deliberately resolve to leave the 
Union. 1 If these utterances hurt Greeley's future political 
career, still more did Thurlow Weed's editorials in the 
Albany Evetiing Journal shake his leadership. At the end 
of November, Weed came out in favor of such a fugitive 
slave law as should arm 

the Federal authorities with all needful power for its execu- 
tion, together with a provision making Counties where fugi- 
tives are rescued by violence . . . liable for the value of the 
slaves so rescued. And in regard to the other vexed question, 
viz: the right of going into the Territories with slaves, why 
not restore the Missouri Compromise line? 

1 Tribune, Nov. 9, 16, Dec. 17. Rhodes' History of the United 
States, iii, p. 140-1, as to the authorship of these editorials. 

299] 99 



IO o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [300 

These measures, Weed advocated at intervals in his 
paper x with the object of holding the border states in the 
Union. This amazing change of views by one who from 
youth had been an anti-slavery man, 2 who had bitterly as- 
sailed the fugitive slave law, 3 and who had nothing to gain 
from such a reversal but much to lose, was probably the 
result of an ardently patriotic desire to avert the threatened 
calamity, combined with a long-standing hatred of aboli- 
tionists. 4 

Weed declared that in urging the proposed compro- 
mise, he spoke for himself alone, and the Auburn Advertiser 
asserted that Seward disclaimed newspaper assumptions 
that he approved the plan favored by the Albany Evening 
Journal. 5 The speeches of Seward in the Senate in Janu- 
ary, however, were thought by many to accord with the 
policy advocated by Weed. 6 And, indeed, this interpretation 
was not wrong, perhaps, inasmuch as Weed began what 
Seward called " well intentioned " movements after long 
conferences between the two, and moreover, Seward never 
directly came out against Weed's views on this matter. 7 

1 Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 26, 30, Dec. 14, 17; Weed's Auto- 
biography, pp. 603-4-5. 
' Barnes' Memoir of Weed, pp. 188-9, 2 4 2 - 
* Barnes' Memoir of Weed, pp. 185, 242. 

4 See Weed's letter to Granger in 1845, Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p.230. 

5 Quoted by the Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 19. 

6 The Albany Argus so interpreted the speeches and took some comfort 
from them {Argus, Jan. 14). Senator Fessenden considered Seward's 
speech of January 31st/' an abandonment of our party ground" (Fes- 
senden' s Life of Fessenden, i, pp. 121-2). So did the Tribune (Feb. 4). 

'Bancroft's Seward, ii, pp. 26, 28. Storey's Sumner, p. 190, tells of 
Weed and Seward visiting Sumner during January, 1861, and urging ad- 
justment. Rhodes' History of the United States , iii, pp. 288-9, however, 
remarks that "in no public utterance nor private letter which has been 
printed did he [Seward] assert that he would sustain it" [the Critten- 
den compromise, which was practically what Weed advocated]. 



3 oi] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR ioi 

Seward apparently wished the proposition to be made; but 
he desired to escape the responsibility, 1 and Weed promised 
to effect that. 2 

Weed's plan found few friends in his party. Though 
the New York Times and the New York Courier and En- 
quirer endorsed his suggested compromise, 3 it created 
almost a revolt in the Republican ranks of New York. 4 
Senator Preston King wrote to Weed : " It cannot be done. 
You must abandon your position. It will prove distasteful 
to the majority of those whom you have hitherto led." 5 
From Albany, George E. Baker wrote to Sumner that 
Weed's proposals were approved of by no one of influence 
and had no support in the rural districts. 6 And in the 
middle of December, the Albany Evening Journal itself ac- 
knowledged that, with two or three exceptions, its sugges- 
tions for adjusting the controversy which threatened the 
Union had been utterly rejected by the Republican press of 
this and other states. 7 Yet Weed persisted during Decem- 
ber and the following months in advocating his plan of com- 
promise. His courage on this occasion 8 may well be 
granted; but it was misguided bravery, a poor move from 
the standpoint of both politician and statesman. 

On the Democratic side, however, the desire for conces- 
sion was more excusable. The united feeling of the party 
in that direction found its most prominent exposition at 
this time in the New York City Pine Street meeting. This 

1 Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 27. 2 Ibid., p. 26, footnote. 

3 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, ii, p. 308. 

4 In addition to the evidence given in the text, see the Herald, Dec. 
14, 21; Tribune, Dec. 6, 7. 

5 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 209. 

6 Pierce's Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, iv, p. 6, footnote. 

7 Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 17. 

8 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 335. 



102 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [302 

demonstration took place in the middle of December. Al- 
though Mr. Richard Lathers, the prime mover in the af- 
fair, 1 declared that the meeting was one of "national men, 
irrespective of party," the lists of those who signed the call 2 
and of the one hundred and eighty to whom invitations were 
sent 3 show only Democrats with a sprinkling* of Bell- 
Everett men taking part. Of the speakers, Charles O'Conor, 
John A. Dix, Daniel S. Dickinson, and John McKeon were 
Democrats, while Hiram Ketchum had supported Bell. The 
resolutions 4 favored the rendition of fugitive slaves, the 
repeal of personal liberty laws, and the maintenance of the 
rights of the South in the territories ; the people of a terri- 
tory alone should decide the question of slavery therein 
when they framed a constitution for admission as a state; 
while deploring the excitement in the South, the resolutions 
did " not hesitate to say that there is just ground for it; " 
and finally, they entreated the South to abstain from hasty 
action. Millard Fillmore, Greene C. Bronson, and Richard 
Lathers were appointed to proceed to the South with the 
address and resolutions adopted. 5 Though Lathers pre- 
sented these to various Southern officials, nothing came of 
this effort to avert disunion. 

Upon the meeting of the Legislature in January, 1861. 
the Weed and Greeley forces joined battle in the choice of a 
nominee for the speakership. The speaker of the previous 
assembly, 6 Dewitt C. Littlejohn, a lieutenant of Weed, was 

1 Tribune, Dec. 17; Sanborn's Reminiscences of Richard Lathers, p.91. 

'Printed in the Herald, Dec. 15. 

'Printed in the Herald, Dec. 16. I have not been able to recognize 
a single Republican of any prominence in this list; thirty-three were 
well known Democrats and a smaller number Bell-Everett men. 

* Herald, Dec. 16. 

5 Herald, Dec. 16; Sanborn's Reminiscences of Richard Lathers, 
p. 112; Dix's Memoirs of John A. Dix, i, pp. 347-8-9. 

6 And also of the Assemblies of 1855, '57, and '59. 



303] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 103 

a candidate for reelection. Littlejohn was accused of hav- 
ing been connected with the passage of the railroad acts 
generally stigmatized as corrupt, which had gained for the 
previous legislature its bad name. 1 The Greeley faction 
backed Lucius Robinson of Chemung County, a man who 
had already served creditably in the legislature and who 
later rose to be governor of the State. Greeley, David Dud- 
ley Field, and George Opdyke went up to Albany to work 
for Robinson. Weed, with a large number of politicians, 
was, of course, on the ground. 2 The contest was purely 
factional and personal ; for Robinson was, as later events 
proved, in accord with Weed upon the great question of the 
hour. When the caucus met, the opposing sides were found 
to be quite evenly balanced. Upon the first ballot, Robinson 
had 42 votes, Littlejohn 38, Henry A. Prendergast 4, and 
Anson Bingham 3. On the next three ballots, Robinson 
continued to lead, though with decreasing strength ; while 
on the fifth trial, Littlejohn had 38 votes to Robinson's 37. 
It was evident that the supporters of Prendergast and Bing- 
ham held the balance. Accordingly, Robinson withdrew 
his name and nominated Bingham. This was a false move, 
for Bingham declined. The anti-Weed men found them- 
selves in an embarrassing position, being without a candi- 
date, and so renominated Robinson. On the next ballot, 
however, Littlejohn was successful in obtaining a majority. 3 
Whether this was because the followers of the minor candi- 
dates became convinced that there was no chance of the prize 
falling to a third man, or whether, as Greeley declared, 4 the 
result was brought about " by the influences usually para- 

1 Argus, Jan. 7. * Herald, Jan. 1. 

* Argus, Jan. 1; Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 1; Tribune, Jan. 1; 
Herald, Jan. 1; Utica Telegraph purporting to give an "inside view" 
of the caucus occurrences (quoted in the Argus, Jan. 7). 

* Tribune (dispatch signed "H. G."), Jan. 1. 



!04 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [304 

mount here," cannot be said. Francis Kernan of Oneida 
was chosen as the Democratic candidate. In the Assem- 
bly, Littlejohn received 90 votes, Kernan 3I. 1 This contest 
for the speakership was significant because it showed the 
strength of the opposition to Weed. 

The new legislature consisted of 23 Republicans and 9 
Democrats in the Senate, and 93 Republicans and 35 Demo- 
crats in the Assembly. 2 The Republican majority was not 
only divided into Weed and anti-Weed factions, but it was 
not in accord on policy. As for the latter difference, Weed 
was, as we have seen, the disturbing cause. Governor 
Morgan, though he belonged to the Weed-Seward wing 
of the party, came out strongly in his annual message 
against the proposed compromise. Despite a generally mod- 
erate tone and some conciliatory sentiments, such as a 
recommendation that the law of 1840 giving fugitives a jury 
trial be repealed, and a suggestion that other states having 
personal liberty laws be invited to repeal them, the message 
displayed upon the main question the same firm attitude that 
was held by the mass of the party throughout the country. 
After declaring that to permit or acquiesce in a treasonable 
conspiracy against the national authorities was to confess 
the absolute failure of our polity, and that the people of New 
York would support the federal authorities in the enforce- 
ment of the laws — thus indirectly endorsing coercion — the 
Governor went on with reference to the proposed compro- 
mise on the basis of the Missouri line : " . . . this State does 
not ask, nor does she desire the restoration of that line. . . . 
her people have declared against the extension of slavery 
into any of the territories, . . . there should be no sur- 
render of important rights, nor sacrifice of vital principles." 3 

1 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 6. * Annual Cyclopaedia, 1861, p. 519. 
3 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 3CO-302. 



305] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR IQ 5 

Soon after the beginning of the session, Mr. Robinson 
introduced resolutions favoring the formation of all terri- 
tory remaining after the admission of Kansas into two states 
with such constitutions as the inhabitants thereof should 
adopt. 1 Curiously enough, Robinson had been, but a few 
days before, the anti-Weed candidate for speaker, and now 
he championed a policy strongly supported by Weed but 
repudiated by very many of the latter's followers. The ex- 
planation of this situation lies in the personalities and char- 
acters of Weed and Greeley. The former attracted many, 
while others hated the fact and methods of his leadership; 
Greeley, on the other hand, by his impracticability, his insta- 
bility, his readiness to take up various " isms ", and his gen- 
eral inaptitude in politics repelled many. The factions in 
the Republican party in New York were as yet largely per- 
sonal, and had not at this time been consolidated on the basis 
of principle into a radical and a conservative wing. An 
illustration of this is found in the statement of one who 
took part in the celebrated canvass for United States senator 
in 1 86 1 to the effect that " Mr. Weed might have been 
chosen Senator, even when known to vary in judgment on 
questions vital in importance from the party making the 
appointment." 2 

A Democratic legislative caucus, at which there were also 
present some of the leading men of the party residing in 
Albany, resolved unanimously to support the Robinson 
resolutions. 3 The Albany Argus came out in their favor, 
thus agreeing for once with its rival, the Evening Journals 

Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 39. 

J Quoted in Barnes' Rlemoir of Weed, p. 322. s Tribune, Jan. 4. 

*ln a number of editorials, e. g., Jan. 16, the Argus strongly favored 
the passage of the resolutions. The Albany Evening Journal of Jan. 
3, 4, 19, contained similar editorials. While the two rivals agreed on 



106 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [306 

While the resolutions were being considered in committee, 
both houses were devoting a good deal of attention to var- 
ious matters involving the great national issue of the day. 
The debates show that the majority of the Republicans were 
not in accord with Weed's border-state policy. The Demo- 
crats favored conciliation, compromise, delay, and the avoid- 
ance of every thing which might conceivably irritate the 
South. 1 Their position was well illustrated in a party de- 
bate in the Assembly on resolutions 2 to present Major 
Anderson with a sword. While the Democrats expressed 
their admiration of Anderson and their approval of his 
course, they argued against the resolutions on the ground 
that their passage would add bitterness to the existing state 
of affairs. 3 Now and then, however, there was an occa- 

this matter, it must not be supposed, however, that the Journal ' s posi- 
tion toward the South was the same as that of the Democrats. In jus- 
tice to Weed, it should be stated that the Journal advocated coercion 
of seceding states (Jan. 18) , and the putting of New York into condi- 
tion for defence (Jan. 28). Weed simply maintained that there was a 
"Union sentiment in the border slave states worth preserving," and 
that the passage of the Robinson resolutions would give that Union 
sentiment the needed support and sympathy from the North (Albany 
Evening Journal, Jan. 19). 

'The Argus, in accord with the views of the Democratic legislators, 
published such editorials as these: " We say emphatically, let the great 
State of New York not be foremost in kindling a flame. . . . We re- 
peat — if disunion must come, let it come without war " (Jan. 12). Jan. 
18, it said: " Shall we talk of coercing such a Nation? ... If the at- 
tempt is made, New York will not be an accomplice in it — certainly not 
the Democracy of New York." 

1 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 49. 

3 Argus, Jan. 9, 11, 12; Herald, Jan. 9, 12. At first, but two Repub- 
licans (including Robinson) favored the expression of approval in some 
other way than by the presentation of a sword; subsequently, a number 
of Republicans supported such a proposal, partly for the sake of unan- 
imity. Action on the subject was postponed by a vote of 62 to 50 (As- 
sembly Journal, 1861, p. 82), and the resolutions were finally laid on 
the table (Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 91). The attitude of the Demo- 



307] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 107 

sional divergence from this position by a few of the minor- 
ity, anticipating the later War Democrats. 1 Thus, the effect 
of the news that the Star of the West had been fired upon 
by South Carolina was marked. In the Assembly, the 
Speaker took the floor and offered resolutions tendering 
to the President " whatever in men and money may be re- 
quired to enable him to enforce the laws and uphold the 
authority of the federal government." Under a patriotic 
impulse these resolutions passed the Assembly, 117 to 2, the 
nays being cast by New York City Democrats who refused to 
vote for what they termed coercion. 2 In the Senate, the 
resolutions were adopted by a vote of 28 to I. 3 The Demo- 
crats, however, soon relapsed into their former attitude. 

About the middle of January, a majority of the select 
committee, to which had been referred in the Assembly so 
much of the Governor's message as related to national dif- 
ficulties as well as the Robinson resolutions, reported a series 
of resolutions condemning secession and pledging support 

crats was also shown in a debate on a resolution to inquire into rumors 
of cannon being made at Troy for South Carolina. Mr. Kernan, the 
minority leader, opposed the resolution and every Democrat present 
voted against it {Argus, Jan. 21; Herald, Jan. 20). The Democratic 
position was again shown in a long debate over a bill to prevent aiding, 
abetting, and comforting the enemies of the Republic {Argus, Jan. 25). 

1 E. g., Senators Spinola {Argus, Jan. 4, 12) and J. McLeod Murphy 
{Argus, Jan. 26; Tribune, Jan. 26). The latter, in a speech delivered 
near the end of January, took the ground that disunionists were guilty 
of treason, that compromise was out of the question, advocated thor- 
oughly arming the State, and condemned the call for a Democratic 
convention. Immediately, one of his Democratic colleagues proceeded 
to read Murphy out of the party. 

* Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 76-77; Argus, Jan. 12; Herald, Jan. 12. 

s Senate Journal, 1861, p. 57. The resolutions were, of course, ap- 
proved by the Governor and were telegraphed by him to Buchanan. 
They are printed in Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 
306-7. 



I0 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [308 

to the federal government, but ending with an expression of 
a desire for conciliation and with an embodiment of the 
resolutions previously introduced by Robinson. 1 This re- 
port was signed by three Republicans and two Democrats. 2 
Two Republicans presented a minority report, reciting that 
" the basis of settlement now proposed has, to a certain ex- 
tent, been tried and found wanting," and pledging the 
members of the Legislature to use all their influence " to 
secure the faithful observance and due execution " of such 
laws as were not declared unconstitutional by the judiciary, 
" as well as to maintain all the constitutional rights of the 
citizens of all the States; and we tender this as the only com- 
promise which can be honorably offered or accepted." 8 
These sentiments were more in accord with those of the 
majority of the Republican members. 

In the Senate, resolutions 4 approved by every member 
of the committee on federal relations declared that a state 
had no right to secede, that the Legislature would sustain 
the Executive of the State in offering and pledging the mili- 
tary power and resources of the State and would " ' provide 
for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, 
suppress insurrection and repel invasions,' whether within 
or without the State;" that New York would make equal 
sacrifices to preserve the Union and the constitutional rights 
of the states ; that Congress had no power to interfere with 
slavery within the states; that it was inexpedient to exer- 
cise its power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia 
except with the approval of the majority of voters in the 
District and the consent of Maryland ; that Congress should 

1 Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 115-116. 

2 Argus, Jan. 19; Herald, Jan. iq. 
'Assembly documents, 1861, no. 25. 
4 Senate Journal, 1861, p. 67. 



309] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 109 

not inhibit or impair interstate slave traffic; and that while 
the rendition of fugitive slaves was a constitutional obliga- 
tion, the law of 1850 ought to be modified. Robinson's 
proposals were, however, not approved ; and it was this that 
occasioned complaint from the Democratic members of the 
committee. The resolutions of the committee, so far as 
they went, were concurred in by the whole committee; but 
they did not go as far as the minority desired. They failed 
to touch upon the question of slavery in the territories, for 
every proposition on this point, including the Robinson 
resolutions, had been voted down by the majority members 
of the committee. 1 

A caucus was now held to endeavor to produce harmony 
in the Republican ranks. One member was reported to have 
said that the day for conciliation had passed ; another was 
opposed to yielding an inch; a third thought it a waste of 
time to consider compromise resolutions: another declared 
that the Chicago platform was a sufficient expression of 
opinion; and still another wanted no conciliation, but arm- 
ing the militia. Robinson in vain combated these ideas. • A 
resolution declaring it inexpedient to take any further action 
whatever on the subject — the effect of which would be to 
cut off any compromise resolutions in the Legislature — was 
adopted by a vote of 67 to 5- 2 

Two days later, however, this program was upset from 
without. Governor Morgan transmitted to the Legislature 
resolutions from Virginia requesting the appointment of 
commissioners to the Peace Convention to be held at Wash- 
ington on February 4th. In the accompanying message he 
declared that the great mass of the people of this State de- 
sired that no honorable effort to maintain the Union by 

1 Argus, Jan. 17; Herald, Jan. 17. 
* Herald, Jan. 23; Argus, Jan. 26. 



HO NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [310 

peaceful means should be left untried and accordingly he 
recommended the appointment of commissioners. 1 This 
message reopened the subject. The Robinson resolutions 
were brought up again in the assembly committee of the 
whole, despite the caucus decision. In the course of the de- 
bate, one Republican remarked : " It has also been said that 
the . . . editor of the Evening Journal had only to wave his 
wand over the Assembly and a majority of knees would bow, 
but if the wand was waved to encompass the passage of these 
resolutions it would be found to have lost its magic power." 
This member spoke truly; for Mr. Robinson, influential as 
he was and though aided by the support of Weed and of the 
Democrats, could not carry with him the majority of his 
party or sufficient of them to pass the resolutions. 2 

Meanwhile, Weed in the Albany Evening Journal came 
out strongly in favor of the appointment of commissioners 
to the Peace Convention. At the end of January, the ma- 
jority of the joint committee, to which the Virginia reso- 
lutions had been referred, reported. They recommended 
that there be appointed as delegates the following: David 
Dudley Field, Erastus Corning, William Curtis Noyes, Ad- 
dison Gardiner, James S. Wadsworth, Greene C. Bronson, 
James C. Smith, William E. Dodge, and Amaziah B. James. 
The report said that, while " acceding to the request of 
Virginia, it is not to be understood that this Legislature ap- 
proves of the propositions submitted by the General Assem- 
bly of that State, or concedes the propriety of their adoption 
by the proposed convention." 3 In the Assembly, the report 
met with considerable opposition. One Republican declared 
that he was not willing to yield a jot of Republican prin- 

1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 309-313. 
s Argus, Jan. 30; Herald, Jan. 31. 
'Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 205, 227-8. 



3 i i ] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR m 

ciples; another said that if commissioners were appointed, 
they should all be Republicans ; and a third moved to amend 
by substituting Republicans for the Democrats named by 
the committee. Though thirty-seven Republicans voted for 
this amendment, 1 it was defeated after a warm debate — a 
triumph for the supporters of conciliation led by Robinson. 
An amendment, however, that a majority of the nine com- 
missioners should determine how the State's five votes were 
to be cast, was carried. 2 The effect of this was to place 
New York's voice in the convention in the control of men 
not likely to yield anything important. 3 On the main ques- 
tion, thirty-nine nays were cast. 4 In the Senate, too, the 
adoption of the report was opposed. Here too, there was 
an attempt to send none but Republicans. Finally, after 
the names of General Wool and John A. King had been 
added to the delegates, the majority report was adopted, 19 
to 12. 5 The House, after a warm debate, later agreed to 
the Senate amendment, though thirty-four Republicans 
voted against so doing. 6 Addison Gardiner declined to 
serve. A resolution designating in his stead Thurlow Weed 
was then passed, every Democrat present voting aye ; while 
in the Assembly, seventeen Republicans voted nay. 7 Weed, 
however, refused to accept, " though sympathizing warmly 

1 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 225. 
1 Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 226, 227. 

3 For New York's course in the Peace Convention, see the Annual 
Cyclopaedia for 1861, p. 567. 

* Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 228. 

5 Senate Journal, 1861, pp. 141, 142, 143; Argus, Feb. 5, 6; Tribune, 
Feb. 5. Senator J. McLeod Murphy acted with the Republicans on 
this occasion and spoke strongly against accepting Virginia's invitation. 
Otherwise, the debate was on party lines. 

* Argus, Feb. 6; Tribune, Feb. 7; Assembly Journal, 1861, pp. 256- 
260. 

'Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 283; Senate Journal, 1861, p. 157. 



H2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [312 

with this beneficent movement;" and by his inspiration, 
Francis Granger, who as a member of Harrison's cabinet 
and as a candidate for governor and vice-president had had 
a distinguished political career almost a generation before, 
was chosen to fill the vacancy. 1 

The differences in the Republican ranks seemed to some 
not unlikely to lead to new political alignments, in which 
the Democrats and the Weed Republicans would join hands 
on the principle of supporting such a compromise as was ad- 
vocated by both. On the other hand, Thurlow Weed and 
Horace Greeley kept up an acrimonious controversy through- 
out the month of February. A Tribune editorial said : " In 
the present crisis, the Republican policy is no new compro- 
mise with Slavery. The Democrats, on the other hand, de- 
clare themselves ready and anxious to make any and every 
compromise that can be asked for. In this state of things, 
all compromisers are surely tending to the Democratic 
party." 2 The Times warned the Tribune that perseverance 
in criticising Weed and Seward's position would result in 
splitting the party. 3 The Democratic leaders apparently 
thought they saw an opportunity of effecting such a result 
or at least of consolidating on this issue their own party. 
Their influential men professed to believe and their prin- 
cipal organs constantly asserted that, if the Crittenden com- 
promise were but submitted to the people of New York 
State, it would be ratified there by a huge majority. 4 The 

'Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 303; Senate Journal, 1861, p. 190. 

2 Tribune, Feb. 9. ' 3 Times, Feb. 5. 

'E.g., Letter of Seymour to Crittenden, in Chapman's Life of Crit- 
tenden, ii, pp. 254-5; Argus, Dec. 27, i860, claiming that the change in 
New York's vote of November, i860, necessary to reverse the decision 
then made had "already been made in public opinion; and the Repub- 
lican party itself is so far modified in character by the responsibilities 
of power . . . that a large portion of its members would gladly seize 



jijj POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR H3 

example of the Empire State, it was said, would be of tre- 
mendous influence throughout the country. The Repub- 
licans, however, blocked the way. In the Senate, a bill for 
such submission was introduced by a Democrat. An attempt 
to have it considered was opposed by the Republicans, and 
it was buried by reference to the committee on federal rela- 
tions. 1 

Thus headed off, and feeling sincerely — very likely from 
patriotic as much as from political motives — that New 
York's voice should be heard for compromise, her Demo- 
cratic leaders took an extraordinary step. On the 18th of 
January, the Douglas State Committee issued a call for a 
convention to be held at Albany on the last day of the 
month. This document asserted that " the alarming condi- 
tion of our country . . . demands an effort by the Demo- 
cratic party to avert the threatened destruction of our Na- 
tional Union." Those who refused to make concessions 
were declared to be actuated by treasonable designs. " In 
this emergency, conservative men of all classes call upon 
our time-honored party ... to cooperate with patriotic 
citizens elsewhere, and especially with the efforts of the 
' Border States ' in putting down the agitations and con- 
spiracies of the secessionists of the South and the ultra 
Republicans of the North." The call then went on to point 
the way for Democratic opposition to measures of defen- 

the opportunity of compromise. Let such a measure as that said to 
emanate from the representatives of the Border States be submitted to 
the electors of New York, and it would have twice the majority that 
Lincoln obtained. ..." Another sample editorial is that of January 
23d, which read: "Will the Republican majority of our Legislature 
abide this test? The men who bluster about coercion and are inviting 
civil war, dare not submit to a popular vote." In February, the same 
paper daily printed at the head of its editorials the demand, " Let the 
People be Heard." 

1 Herald, Jan. 31; Argus, Jan. 31. 



II 4 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [314 

sive preparation by New York. " The honor and interests 
of our own State," it read, " also call for action on our part 
to check schemes of corrupt legislation which are already 
engendered under pretexts of military and coercive pro- 
jects." 1 Democrats insisted that the convening of such a 
body was not a political but a patriotic move. 2 The Argus 
said, " There never was a convention so little partisan, so 
much ' above party ' ... as this promises to be." It 
claimed that the call had been issued by the Democracy 
because it was the only existing organization that could 
make the appeal, but that the response was made, as it was 
intended, by the conservative masses regardless of past affil- 
iations. 3 On the other hand, the Albany Evening Journal 
said, " . . . very few [were present] not hitherto recog- 
nized as members of the Democratic party." 4 

The convention assembled on the appointed day. The list 
of delegates included very many of the most distinguished 
New York Democrats then living. From Albany County 
came Judge Amasa J. Parker, Lyman Tremain, and Erastus 
Corning; from Cayuga, ex-Governor Throop; from Dutch- 
ess, William Kelly, candidate for governor in i860; from 
Erie, George W. Clinton, son of Governor Clinton; from 
Genesee, Dean Richmond. New York County had, as usual, 
two contesting delegations. That sent by Tammany was a 
truly imposing one. It included " Prince " John Van Buren, 
Martin Van Buren's son, whom contemporaries described 
as a witty and brilliant orator; Samuel J. Tilden and Re- 
corder John T. Hoffman, future governors of the State; 
James T. Brady, Breckinridge candidate for governor in 
i860; Charles O'Conor, the distinguished lawyer; Elijah F. 
Purdy, the "War Horse" of the "soft" Democracy; 

1 Herald, Jan. 19. * Argus, Jan. 28, 29. 

3 Argus, Jan. 31. 4 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 31. 



315] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 115 

William M. Tweed, Peter B. Sweeney, and Richard B. Con- 
nolly, three later " heroes " of New York City's municipal 
annals; August Belmont, chairman of the National Demo- 
cratic Committee — " that fastidious millionaire," the Trib- 
une said, " who has been accorded the distinguished honor 
of assisting the Fourth Ward porter-house keeper in repre- 
senting Water Street and the Five Points;" Daniel E. 
Sickles, already prominent for a rather stormy congres- 
sional career, and later to make his mark in the war; Colonel 
Michael Corcoran; William D. Kennedy, who succeeded 
Fowler as grand sachem of Tammany and who, while 
colonel of the Tammany regiment, lost his life; General 
Hiram Walbridge, late member of Congress; Oswald Ot- 
tendorfer of the Staats Zeitung; John Clancy, editor of the 
Leader; George Law ; Edward Cooper, later mayor of New 
York City; Gustavus W. Smith and Mansfield Lovell, both 
of whom became generals in the Confederate army ; Wilson 
G. Hunt; John McKeon; and Joshua J. Henry, the mer- 
chant who was instrumental in bringing about the fusion of 
i860, or as the Tribune characterized him, " inventor and 
patentee of Union-Saving Committees, and wholesale and 
retail dealer in Fusion tickets ". Ben Wood, John Coch- 
rane, and Gilbert Dean were the only prominent names in 
Mozart's delegation. Oneida County sent ex-Governor 
Horatio Seymour; Orleans, former Lieutenant-Governor 
Sanford E. Church; from Rensselaer came John A. Gris- 
wold and James S. Thayer; from Suffolk, ex-Speaker Will- 
iam H. Ludlow; and from Westchester, Edwin Croswell, 
once editor of the Albany Argus and member of the Re- 
gency in its palmy days. Two former Whigs of prominence 
were included in those elected as delegates : ex-President 
Fillmore and William Duer. Fillmore's presence might 
have lent color to the claim that the gathering was a non- 



Il6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [316 

partisan one; but he did not attend. 1 Horace Greeley later 
described the convention as " probably the strongest and 
most imposing assemblage of delegates ever convened within 
the State." 2 

The Albany Regency ran the convention as usual ; for it 
was called to order by Peter Cagger, generally managed by 
Dean Richmond, the temporary chairman was Sanford E. 
Church, and the president, Judge Parker. No sooner had 
Church been installed than there occurred what had now 
come to be a regular feature of New York Democratic con- 
ventions : a contest between Tammany and Mozart. Some 
days previous to this, Tammany Hall had instructed its dele- 
gates to withdraw in case Mozart was recognized/ Mo- 
zart, too, in its general committee had prepared to assert 
its claim. It passed resolutions denouncing its rival as a 
corrupt organization, and appealed to the convention " to 
discountenance the unfounded and preposterous assump- 
tion of the bogus delegation " of Tammany. 4 When the 
convention assembled, the Tammany men insisted that they 
alone should be seated from New York County. Mozart 
was willing to divide the vote with Tammany. 5 The Re- 
gency leaders and the up-state members favored this com- 
promise; for the votes controlled by Mozart were often nec- 
essary to Democratic success in the State, while the struggle 
for recognition; back of which lay a scramble for the pat- 
ronage of the metropolis, was not of direct concern to any 
but the two Halls. Accordingly, the delegates resolved 

' List of delegates published in the Argus, Jan. 31; Tribune, Jan. 30. 
Greeley later wrote that " there was a large and most respectable repre- 
sentation of the old Whig party, with a number who had figured as 
' Americans' " {American Conflict, i, p. 388). 

2 Greeley's American Conflict, i, p. 388. % Herald, Jan. 29. 

4 Herald, Jan. 30. 'Herald, Feb. I. 



317] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 117 

that not being assembled for partisan purposes, they did 
not wish to decide which of the rival sets of contestants 
was the regular one, and that therefore both should be 
admitted. Thereupon, Tammany withdrew for consul- 
tation and voted not to return. 1 Such a bolt might have 
led to a war between Tammany and the Regency. A 
resolution inviting the Tammany delegation to return was 
unanimously carried in the convention on the second day; 
and a committee headed by Seymour was appointed to plead 
with the seceders. This proved successful. Tammany in 
the end returned, contenting itself with a formal communi- 
cation stating the representations made to it that the admis- 
sion of Mozart was not to be regarded as a decision as to 
which Hall was the regular organization. 2 

Meanwhile, Horatio Seymour on the afternoon of the 
first day's session delivered a speech filled with sympathy 
for the South — sentiments to be used later against him. 3 
" Revolution," he said, 

has actually begun. The term " secession " divests it of none 
of its terrors. . . . All virtue, patriotism, and intelligence 
seem to have fled from our National Capitol ; it has been well 
likened to a conflagration of an asylum for madmen — some 
look on with idiotic imbecility, some in sullen silence, and some 
scatter the firebrands which consume the fabric above them, 
and bring upon all a common destruction. 

Fanaticism, he declared, was to blame for all this evil. "The 
agitation of the question of slavery has thus far brought 

1 Herald, Feb. 1; Argus, Feb. 1; correspondence between August 
Belmont, chairman of the Tammany delegation and Amasa J. Parker, 
president of the convention {Herald, Feb. 2). 

* Argus, Feb. 1; Herald, Feb. 2. 

s The entire speech is printed in the Argus, Feb. 6. 



Il8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [318 

far greater social, moral and legislative evils upon the peo- 
ple of the free States than it has upon the institutions against 
whom [sic] it has been excited." Then he reviewed the 
subject of controversy, finding that in the acquisition of ter- 
ritory, the North had obtained the advantage, that the 
South did not ask to extend slavery, and that the Repub- 
licans under the cry of " no extension " really were " agi- 
tating for repeal and restrictions." Reverting to this topic 
of the inequality of North and South later in the speech, 
Seymour asserted that the North had gained in population 
and political power, not merely because of natural causes, 
but also because of " a policy that favored the commercial 
interests and immigration from other lands. This policy 
has ever been upheld loyally by the South. . . . Would it 
not be base and cowardly to withhold at this day those cour- 
tesies and that consideration which they showed in the days 
of their comparative strength ? " The South, Seymour said, 
was justly alarmed by " their most bitter and unscrupulous 
assailants." He had no word of condemnation for that 
section. 

The alternatives for settling the controversy were, he de- 
clared, compromise or civil war. " Let us see," he went on, 
" if successful coercion by the North is less revolutionary 
than successful secession by the South." He compared the 
resources, the legislation and the state finances of the South- 
ern states with those of the Northern states, all to the advan- 
tage of the former. He asked, how was the war to be con- 
ducted. He spoke of the " madness of trying to muster 
armies to occupy their [the Southern states'] territory." 
For exciting a servile insurrection, we had " cursed the 
brutal inhumanity " of Great Britain. As for a blockade, 
Seymour pointed to the immense length of the coast, to the 
number of harbors in the South, and to the failure of Great 



319] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 119 

Britain with superior naval forces successfully to block- 
ade the coast. If such a measure were effective, the North 
through the loss of the coasting trade would be the chief 
sufferers. " We can inflict great misery upon the South," 
Seymour continued, " but could human ingenuity devise a 
warfare more destructive to all the interests of the Northern 
States of this Confederacy?" " Upon what field shall this 
contest be waged ?" he asked. " Upon what spot shall 
Americans shed American blood?" The question reduced 
itself to this, he said : Shall we have compromise after war, 
or compromise without war? 

Then he pleaded that concession be made to save the 
border states. If the Crittenden compromise were but sub- 
mitted to the people of New York, he did not fear the re- 
sult; but if it was unhappily rejected, the days of the Re- 
public were numbered. " We may have not only one but 
many Confederacies. ... In the downfall of our nation 
and amidst its crumbling ruins," he concluded, 

we will cling to the fortunes of New York. We will stand 
together, and so shape the future that its glory and greatness 
and wonderful advantages shall not be sacrificed to rival in- 
terests. We will loyally follow its flag through the gloom and 
perils of the future, and in the saddened hour there will re- 
main a gleam of hope and we can still hail with pride the 
motto emblazoned on its shield " Excelsior." 

At the second day's session, Lyman Tremain and James 
S. Thayer spoke strongly against coercion. Tremain came 
to hold different views after the outbreak of the war. On 
this occasion, he denounced the Republican leaders ; but he 
was proud to see many honorable exceptions everywhere. 
" T should do injustice," he said, 

... if I did not mention among these Lucius Robinson, . . . 



120 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [320 

who has not only introduced resolutions for conciliation and 
peace, but has sufficient manliness about him to stand up in 
defiance of the iron rule of the caucus and maintain his posi- 
tion as a patriot and a man. There is another man to whom 
I wish to do justice. . . . That man is rising above the ob- 
ligations of party, and is appealing to his political friends to 
take the view of this crisis which is entertained by the Demo- 
cratic party. I mean Thurlow Weed. 1 

The name of Robinson was greeted with cheers, and Weed's 
with an even greater outburst 2 — a remarkable tribute from 
a Democratic convention and one which might well seem to 
contemporaries prophetic of a new party alignment. While 
Tremain spoke strongly against secession, he palliated the 
act by saying that the South had " had the most terrible 
provocation to which civilized man has ever been subjected,"' 
and he went on to condemn coercion in the most violent 
terms. 3 

Thayer declared, " When the tie is broken, when fraternal 
hands are unclasped — never, never, shall they be raised in 
hostility to each other " — a sentiment which was loudly ap- 
plauded. He advocated adjustment through the action of 
the border states; and if this could not be accomplished, 
" we can at least," he said, " in an authoritative way and a 
practical mariner arrive at the basis of a peaceful separation 
(renewed cheers)." He took a firm stand against what he 
called civil war under the guise of enforcement of the laws. 
" Against this, under all circumstances, in every phase and 
form, we must now 'and at all times oppose a resolute and 
unfaltering resistance. ... if a revolution of force is to 

1 Argus, Feb. 16. 

* Argus, Feb. 2; Tribune, Feb. 2. 

3 Tremain 's speech is published in full in the Argus, Feb. 16. 



32 1 ] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR i 2 l 

begin, it shall be inaugurated at home (cheers)." * Even 
the philosophical Tilden in his address was outspoken against 
coercion, showing the disastrous consequences of any such 
attempt against states so strong and resourceful as those of 
the South, and declaring that " he, for one, would resist 
under any and all circumstances, the use of force to coerce 
the South into the Union, . . ." 2 The prevailing opinion 
among the delegates was also expressed in a speech by Chan- 
cellor Walworth, justifying by the example of the Revolu- 
tionary patriots the spirit of the South in resistance to the 
laws, and urging anything but civil war. 3 

In view of these utterances and the favorable manner in 
which they were received, the resolutions were milder than 
might have been expected and bore signs of having been 
toned down by Seymour and other cautious politicians. 
An attempt on the floor of the convention to carry an amend- 
ment " imploring the general government to abstain from 
the use of any force '.' pending the consideration of com- 
promise measures, was opposed by Mr. Ludlow of the com- 
mittee on resolutions, as antagonistic to the defence of the 
national capital should it be attacked. Several delegates 
argued for the adoption of the amendment, but it was 
finally withdrawn and the original resolution adopted unani- 
mously. It was during this debate that George W. Clinton, 
ripe in years and honor, uttered his patriotic but discord- 
ant note (which was audibly dissented from) that " there 
could be no legal secession of a State, but that States which 
did secede were in a state of rebellion." 4 

1 Thayer's speech is published in full in the Argus, Feb. 18, See 
also Greeley's American Conflict, i, pp. 392-3. 
3 Argus, Feb. 2. 

5 Argus, Feb. 2; Greeley's American Conflict, i, p. 393. 
* Argus, Feb. 2; Tribune, Feb. 2. 



122 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [322 

Though the resolutions were more moderate than some of 
the delegates preferred, yet the document showed that the 
Democrats of New York desired compromise — favored it 
so earnestly that their convention gave approval to some 
rather remarkable proposals looking toward action in that 
direction. The opening resolution appealed to all citizens 
to rise above party. Then came a strong condemnation of 
coercion, with the assertion that " the worst and the most 
ineffective argument that can be addressed by the confed- 
eracy of its adhering members to the seceding States is civil 
war." Adjustment of pending difficulties by compromise, 
support of the border states in their efforts to bring about 
such a result, and the adoption of the Crittenden compro- 
mise or some other measure acceptable to the border states 
were favored. It was further determined that a committee 
of five be appointed to urge the New York Legislature 
to submit the Crittenden compromise to the voters of the 
State at the earliest practicable date, that Congress be 
urged to submit amendments to the constitution for rati- 
fication by the states, and that if Congress failed to act, 
" the Legislature of this State be requested to take the 
initiatory steps under the constitution for summoning a gen- 
eral convention for proposing amendments. . . ." Another 
resolution favored the appointment of commissioners to the 
Peace Convention ; and it was resolved that " should the 
Legislature not appoint the said commissioners, . . . this 
Convention hereby appoint Millard Fillmore, Addison Gard- 
iner. Greene C. Bronson, Erastus Corning, Horatio Sey- 
mour, Washington Hunt, Amasa J. Parker, Charles 
O'Conor, and Samuel J. Tilden as such commissioners, on 
the part of the friends of conciliation in the State of New 
York." All these except Fillmore and Hunt were Demo- 
crats, and Hunt was fast drifting into the Democratic ranks. 



323] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 123 

This was a rather inconsistent ending to a document be- 
ginning with an appeal to rise above party. On motion 
of Samuel J. Tilden, a committee to correspond with the 
Democrats of other states on the project of a general con- 
vention to amend the constitution was appointed. Other 
committees to present resolutions to Congress and to me- 
morialize the Legislature were named, after which the con- 
vention adjourned. 1 

It cannot be said that this extraordinary body accom- 
plished any good, from either the party or the patriotic point 
of view. For days thereafter, the Argus printed at the top 
of its editorial columns an appeal headed, " Let the People 
be Heard." The Democrats, it said, " demand that the 
people may be allowed to vote for or against the Crittenden 
Compromise. The Republicans refuse to submit to the 
popular test." This was quite true, and the mass of the 
Republicans were not to be moved by such means from their 
position. 

Something must be said of other expressions of the atti- 
tude of New York Democrats during the first few months 
of the year. In New York City, the most extreme senti- 
ments of sympathy for the South were uttered. At the be- 
ginning of January, Mayor Wood sent to the Common 
Council his famous message, in which he said : 

It would seem that a dissolution of the federal Union is in- 
evitable. . . . If these forebodings shall be realized . . .[it] 
will not only be necessary for us to settle the relations which 
we shall hold to other cities and States, but to establish, if we 

can, new ones with a portion of our own State With 

our aggrieved brethren of the slave States we have friendly 
relations and a common sympathy. . . . While other portions 

1 Argus, Feb. 2; Tribune, Feb. 2; Herald, Feb. 2. 



124 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [324 

of our State have, unfortunately, been imbued with the fanat- 
ical spirit which actuates a portion of the people of New Eng- 
land, the city of New York has unfalteringly preserved the 
integrity of its principles in adherence to the compromises of 
the constitution and the equal rights of the people of all the 
States. 

Then, after speaking of the aggressions and usurpations 
of the state legislature at the expense of the metropolis, 
Wood continued : "How we shall rid ourselves of this odious 
and oppressive connection, it is not for me to determine." 
He virtually confessed that his scheme was impracticable, 
since he acknowledged that the legislature would not consent 
to it and that a resort to arms must not be thought of. But 
he asked nevertheless :".'.. why should not New York 
City, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue 
two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also 
equally independent? As a free city, with but a nominal 
duty on imports, her local government could be supported 
without taxation upon her people. . . ."* What a paradise 
that would have been for a politician like Wood. 

A similar idea — New York State becoming independent 
or else the head of a free-trade confederacy embracing the 
middle west and western States and excluding New Eng- 
land — had been broached by the Albany Argus as early as 
the latter part of November, i860, and had been reverted 
to more than once. In an editorial entitled " The Sentiment 
of New York," the Argus said : 

We have no hesitation in saying that three-fourths of the 
people of New York would condemn any attempt to treat the 
States of the South as Rebels, instead of removing their griev- 

1 The message is printed in full in the Herald, Jan. 8. 



325] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 125 

ances .... and would not only condemn but resist such an 
attempt. . . . When, however, the Southern States become 
de facto a separate Confederacy, we shall consider the present 
Union at an end in all its parts. Then New York will seek to 
gather around her, in mutual relations of friendship, the States 
which will naturally seek her alliance, and will open her ports 
and offer her internal lines of communication to their use. 
She will preserve her own freedom, and give to her sister con- 
federates and to the world the boon of freedom of trade. 1 

On the floor of the House of Representatives, Daniel E. 
Sickles declared that " in the event of secession in the South, 
New York City would free herself from the hated Repub- 
lican ' State ' government of New York and throw open her 
ports to free commerce." 2 Perhaps, these were not typical 
utterances. When, however, we find the same or similar 
treasonable views approved by such rival factors in the New 
York Democracy as the organ of the Regency, Wood, and a 
prominent member of Tammany, and when this fact is con- 
sidered in connection with the Albany convention of Janu- 
ary, 1 86 1, perhaps it is not unreasonable to suppose — un- 
pleasant as it may be — that there was a considerable de- 
gree of like sentiment among the Democrats of New York, 
which the events of April prevented from coming into fuller 

1 Argus, Dec. 15, i860; similar editorials, Dec. 1, 10. Nov. 26 it 
said: " Separation is dissolution. Once establish a separation, and 
New York would look for itself." Similar editorials, Nov. 22, 27. 

3 Burgess, Civil War and the Constitution, i, p. 147. The Tribune 
(Dec. 6, i860) quoted the New York Express to the same effect; the 
same scheme is set forth in the Washington correspondence of the 
Herald (Dec. 8, i860). See also Rhodes' History of the United States, 
>»» PP-370-7I, quoting MSS. Confederate Diplomatic Correspondence and 
William H. Russell's Diary. Also " Diary of a Public Man," North 
American Review, cxxix, p. 140. Buchanan in a letter of December 22, 
i860, to Royal Phelps, refers to the existence of the idea (Works, ed. 
by Moore, xi, p. 74). 



126 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [326 

view. At any rate, such expressions were mischievous, 
since, as is well known, they encouraged the secessionists to 
believe that the North would be divided in case of war. 

On the 28th of January, two days before the Democratic 
State Convention, a great " Union-saving " meeting took 
place at Cooper Institute, in which men of all parties which 
had fused against Lincoln participated. This meeting was 
more moderate in tone. The resolutions adopted, endors- 
ing the Crittenden compromise, were comparatively mild. 
The principal speaker, James T. Brady, made a plea to the 
South to be generous and to remain with the Northerners 
so as to give them a chance to gain a victory for the Demo- 
cratic party. While he said that he did not believe in 
the practicability of coercion, he proposed three cheers for 
Major Anderson, which the audience gave in a hearty 
manner. The meeting adopted a resolution appointing three 
commissioners to the conventions of South Carolina, Flor- 
ida, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. 1 

In the latter part of January, Mayor Wood had another 
opportunity to show his ultra sympathy with the South. 
The metropolitan police having seized twenty-eight cases 
of muskets bound for Savannah, Wood sent a dispatch to 
Toombs saying, " If I had the power, I should summarily 
punish the authors of this illegal and unjustifiable seizure of 
private property." 2 Wood's hand was further shown in a 
series of violent resolutions adopted at a full and enthusiastic 
meeting of the Mozart Hall General Committee on the 

1 Herald, Jan. 29. 

7 Herald, Feb. 10. The Albany Argus (Feb. 12) approved Wood's 
action. In the issue of February 15th it assailed Superintendent of 
Police Kennedy for seizing rifles intended for the South, declaring that 
the seizure was illegal, tended "to embroil this State in controversies 
with Southern States," and was a dangerous, arbitrary precedent. 



327] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 127 

fourth of April. A week before Sumter was fired on, these 
resolutions declared that the " causes of complaint of our 
Southern brethren should be listened to, recognized, and 
removed;" they condemned the Republican majority in 
Congress for refusing to concede to the South any of its 
" reasonable demands ; " they asserted that 

the rapid developments of the last five months have rendered 
the existence of the Southern confederacy a historical fact; 
that, excepting by the free, spontaneous act of the separate 
members composing it, its independent nationality can only be 
interfered with by violence ; and that we are opposed to every 
form of menace, restraint, or coercion, under whatsoever pre- 
text of enforcing law, collecting revenue, or retaking property, 
which may lead to a conflict with the seceded States. ... In 
an age when oppressed nationalities . . . are seeking remedies 
for injustice and oppression by asserting local independence 
and vindicating the " right of revolution "... it behooves the 
central government at Washington and the State authorities 
at Albany to pause, before they persist in efforts to force even 
upon a million and a half of Union-loving people either a tariff 
by which their prosperity is undermined, or a municipal govern- 
ment which virtually asserts the principle of taxation without 
representation. 1 

Besides the Democratic convention, the political situation 
in New York during the early months of 1861 was diver- 
sified by another and more striking incident, the Greeley- 
Evarts contest for the United States senatorship. Greeley's 
enemies loved to twit him on the score of his desire for office; 
and that he really had a hankering for it at various times 
can scarcely be doubted. But the battle in which the Phil- 
osopher of Spruce Street engaged on this occasion involved 

1 Herald, April 5. 



128 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [328 

more than mere personal ambition. It was part of a series 
of operations for the control of the party in the State, and 
more than that, for an influential position in shaping the 
policy and the distribution of patronage of the incoming na- 
tional administration. This struggle began at Springfield 
soon after the election of Lincoln. Both Weed and Greeley 
visited the President-elect. 1 William Cullen Bryant had 
already written to Lincoln in order to counteract any influ- 
ence which Weed might attempt to exert with regard to 
patronage, the cabinet, or the compromise policy advocated 
in Weed's paper. 2 Other anti-Weed men, apparently, sought 
by personal visits and by telegrams to oppose any efforts of 
Weed to control New York appointments. 3 As for Weed's 
plan for a compromise, Lincoln was firmly set against any 
such surrender, and Greeley announced this with satisfaction 
in the Tribune. With regard to the offices, Lincoln on ten- 
dering Seward the secretaryship of state accompanied the 
offer with a distinct notice that in dispensing the patronage, 
his maxim would be " Justice to all." 4 To Bryant, Lincoln 
wrote at the end of December, i860, a reassuring letter, 
promising " to deal fairly with all men and all shades of 
opinion among our friends." 5 The same determination 
was made known to Weed. 6 

The warfare over the cabinet started early and continued 
almost to the inauguration. Bryant immediately after the 
election urged Lincoln to appoint Chase secretary of state. 7 

' Weed's Autobiography, p. 613; Herald, Dec. 25, i860; Jan. 29, 1861. 
'Lincoln's Works (Gettysburg Ed.), vi, p. 89. 
3 Weed's Autobiography, p. 613. 
* Lincoln's Works, vi, p. yy. 

5 Lincoln's Works, vi, p. 89. 

6 Lincoln's Works, vi, p. 105. 
'Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 150. 



329] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR l2 g 

At the end of November, there was held in New York City 
a conference of prominent New York Republicans, mostly 
former Barnburners, the objects apparently being to further 
Chase's chances and to discuss the subject of a New York 
appointment to the cabinet. Among those present were 
Lieutenant-Governor Campbell, David Dudley Field, Charles 
A. Dana, William Curtis Noyes, George Opdyke, Hiram 
Barney, H. B. Stanton, Parke Godwin, and Thomas B. 
Carroll. This conference designated a committee to work 
for the ends mentioned above, and the committee subse- 
quently held a consultation at Albany. 1 At this time, it was 
thought that Seward would not accept a cabinet office, and 
so we find the anti-Weed faction in New York discussing 
the merits of Greeley, Field, Opdyke, Wadsworth, and 
Noyes. 2 Greeley, however, was reported as having said that 
he was " out of the way for any such post." 3 When his 
name was suggested for the postmaster-generalship, he au- 
thorized Colfax " to convey to the President-elect his de- 
cided veto on that selection." 4 Upon being twitted with his 
supposed ambition for this office by Weed's paper, Greeley 
replied with a just pride: " Even the Evening Journal will 
not say that it would have been presumptuous in the Editor 
aforesaid to have aspired to office at the hands of the new 
President. The fact [is] that he did not seek any such 
office. 

The anti-Weed men received a severe blow when in Janu- 
ary it was announced that Seward would be secretary of 
state. They accordingly set about to get a balance to 
Seward in the shape of Chase. Thus Bryant wrote to Lin- 

l H. B. Stanton to Chase, in Diary and Correspo?idence of S. P. 
Chase, American Historical Association Report for 1902, ii, pp. 485, 487. 
'/did. s Ibid. 

' Tribune, Mar. 13. 5 Ibid. 



I3 o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [330 

coin, January 21st, urging the need of Chase's presence in 
the cabinet " as a counterpoise to the one who joins to com- 
manding talents a flexible and indulgent temper of mind 
and unsafe associations." 1 Both Weed and Greeley were 
active in the struggle which toward the end of February 
raged around the question of Chase's appointment. 2 Both 
went to Washington in connection with this matter. Greeley 
in the Tribune accused Weed of opposing Chase's entrance 
into the cabinet " with incomparable virulence, declaring 
that if he was appointed, the Union would certainly be de- 
stroyed." 3 Friends of Seward informed Lincoln on March 
2d, that Seward would not serve with Chase. 4 Weed, if a 
later report may be believed, came away enraged because he 
failed to get Lincoln to omit Chase's name, declaring that 
" Mr. Chase had been placed in the cabinet to control the 
patronage and appointments in the city and State of New 
York, to prevent Governor Seward from controlling the ap- 
pointments, and to deprive him [Weed] of all power and 
influence." 5 Seward himself wrote to Lincoln desiring to 
withdraw his acceptance of the state department. 6 What- 
ever Lincoln's motives in retaining Chase might have been, 
the contest ended, so far as the rival New York factions 
were concerned, in a draw. 

The selection of Seward, however, left a vacancy in the 
United States Senate from New York, and the senatorship 

'Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 151. 

2 Herald, Feb. 26, 27 (Washington dispatches); "Diary of a Public 
Man," North American Review, cxxix, p. 263. 

3 Tribune, Mar. 7. 

4 Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 42; "Diary of a Public Man," 'North 
American Review, cxxix, p. 271. 

"Hart's Chase, pp. 205, 206. 

•Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 42; Lincoln's Works, vi, p. 185. 



331] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 131 

would offer a very good vantage-ground both for influencing 
the policy of the new administration and for getting a share 
of the patronage. The contest for the speakership of the 
New York Assembly had shown that Greeley had a numer- 
ous following in the Legislature, and accordingly a good 
chance of an election to the United States Senate. As soon, 
then, as the Albany Evening Journal announced that Seward 
would be secretary of state, Greeley's friends began to work 
for his election as Seward's successor. 1 Weed supported 
from the first William M. Evarts, though Raymond and 
Webb were mentioned. 2 Evarts was already a leader of the 
New York bar, although the part of his career which made 
him a national figure came after the war. But his argu- 
ment in the celebrated Lemmon case 3 had attracted wide 
attention. Though better known at this time in his profes- 
sion than among politicians, he had acquired some promi- 
nence in the latter field as chairman of the New York dele- 
gation at the Republican National Convention of i860 and 
as one of the principal Seward men in that assemblage. A 
third candidate was Ira Harris, who had served for some 
thirteen years on the bench. His strength from the begin- 
ning of the contest consisted in a band of firm adherents, 
relatively few in number but holding the balance of power. 

The struggle was in part one which involved principle. 
Some legislators who ordinarily followed the lead of Weed 
would not support for the senatorship a candidate who 
favored compromise on the lines advocated by Weed. 
Evarts' speech upon the fugitive slave law at Castle Garden 
was brought up against him; and to counteract this move, 
his friends found it advisable to circulate pamphlets con- 

1 He* aid, Jan. 15. 

8 Herald, Jan. 4, 23. 

'For this, see Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 323. note. 



1^2. NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [332 

taining his argument in the Lemmon slave case and his 
speech at the Broadway Tabernacle. 1 On the other hand, 
Weed was said to have made much use of Greeley's previous 
admission of the right of withdrawal from the Union. 2 And 
yet, personality complicated the situation, producing strange 
inconsistencies. At one time during the preliminary can- 
vass, Weed and his followers seemed about to drop Evarts 
for a stronger candidate, but this plan was given up. 3 A 
number of legislators were reported as declaring that they 
would not vote for Greeley either in or out of the caucus. 4 
Against him it was urged that his presence in the Senate 
would so irritate the South as to aid in dissolving the 
Union. 5 Men who had opposed Weed's conciliatory policy 
now supported his candidate for senator; and some who 
had favored the Robinson resolutions now preferred 
Greeley who was totally opposed to compromise. 

By the last week in January, the battle became animated. 6 
The contest was one of the keenest in the political history of 
the State. David Dudley Field came up to Albany to work 
for Greeley. Evarts came in person, while Harris and Weed 
were already on the scene of action. Weed summoned his 
followers from all over the State to influence the legislators 
from their respective districts, and most of the Republican 
State Committee were at Albany in the interests of Weed's 
man. 

Mr. Evarts was surrounded by a band of the most skilful and 

1 Herald, Jan. 28; Tribune, Feb. 4. 

*" Diary of a Public Man," North American Review, cxxix, p. 136; 
Rhodes' History of the United States, iii, p. 142. 
3 Tribune, Feb. 4; Herald, Feb. 1. 5. 
* Herald, Jan. 23. 
"Tribune, Feb. 4. * Herald, Jan. 26, 28. 



333] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 133 

experienced, the most thoroughly drilled and compacted corps 
of political managers in the country. Mr. Weed, a host in 
himself, led the cohort, flanked and followed by Comptroller 
Haws, Moses H. Grinnell, Simeon Draper, Oakey Hall, . . . 
and other eminent gentlemen from New York City; a large 
moiety of the State officers at Albany; Hollis White, A. B. 
Dickinson, E. B. Leavenworth, O. B. Matteson, and a crowd 
of men of like distinction from the Center, North and West; 
while a cloud of Harbor-Masters, Loan Commissioners, Canal 
Collectors, Canal Appraisers and other officials . . . covered the 
field as light dragoons, skirmishers and zouaves. It is estimated 
that the whole number of men collected here from all parts of 
the State by the managers of Mr. Evarts for the purpose of in- 
fluencing, dragooning, and controlling the members of the 
Legislature in his behalf during the past week has not been 
less than one thousand. . . . Never were the halls and parlors 
of the hotels, or the lobbies of the Legislature, thronged with 
such a feverish and intense activity. 1 

Both sides apparently tried to obtain the assistance of Lin- 
coln. According to Weed, it was given out that the Presi- 
dent-elect favored Greeley. Moreover, the editor of the 
Evening Journal wrote to Lincoln that representations were 
being made that he favored Greeley and that a certain fol- 
lower of the latter claimed to be authorized to dispense the 
New York federal patronage. Lincoln's reply came too* late 
to be used in the contest. In it, he not only denied abso- 
lutely any interference, but stated that Weed was accused of 
doing the same thing of which he complained. Seward, too, 
was besought by some Evarts men to secure Lincoln's in- 

1 Quoted from the Tribune, Feb. 4; confirmed by the Herald account. 
" The anti- Greeley politicians have been summoned from every part of 
the State to take care of their members and convince them that they 
must not vote for Greeley. . . . Most of the State Central Committee 
are here working against Greeley" (Herald, Jan. 31; also Feb. 5). 



134 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [334 

terposition in behalf of Evarts; but in a letter to Weed, 
Seward declined to attempt that. 1 

At last, the day of the caucus, February 2d, came. But 
one Republican legislator was absent. The galleries of the 
assembly chamber, where the caucus was held, could not 
hold the crowds of spectators; and despite repeated efforts 
to clear the floor, they swarmed into that space as well as 
into the lobbies and retiring rooms. Weed was ensconced 
in the governor's room. As aids hasten to the general's 
tent, messengers came thither from time to time with tid- 
ings of how the battle went. On the first ballot, out of 115 
votes, Evarts had 42, Greeley 40, Harris 20. 2 On the 
second ballot, Evarts lost three, while Greeley and Harris 
each gained two. And so it continued a neck and neck race 
with Greeley in the lead, until the eighth ballot resulted in 
Greeley receiving 47 votes (a gain of five over the preceding 
ballot), and Evarts 39. From the very first, Harris had 
been the dark horse. It was predicted that he held the bal- 
ance of power, and so it turned out. During the voting, 
Weed in vain tried to induce Harris's managers to withdraw 
him, but they stood firm. The eighth ballot showed which 
way the contest was going. Now, it must be anything to 
beat Greeley. " Littlejohn brought back to the caucus the 
terrible command;" and so, the Evarts men on the ninth 
ballot began going over to Harris, with the result that the 
latter received 49 votes, Greeley 46, and Evarts 12. 3 On 
the tenth and last, ballot, 60 votes were cast for Harris, 
sufficient to make him the nominee of the caucus; 49 still 

1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, pp. 322-24, including letters of David 
Davis to Weed, Seward to Weed, and Lincoln to Weed. 
'Scattering, 13. 
* Scattering, 7. 



>35J POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 135 

clung to Greeley, while Evarts had but 2. Thereupon, the 
nomination was made unanimous. 1 

Both sides claimed the victory. For many who had sup- 
ported Greeley, it was indeed such ; for the Weed slate had 
been broken. " The one-man power at the State Capital 
is overthrown," wrote the Tribune correspondent. " It was 
a conflict which was to determine whether a dynasty was to 
stand ... or be overthrown or annihilated. Fully appre- 
ciating the fact, not Richard at Bosworth Field, Charles at 
Naseby, nor Napoleon at Waterloo, made a more desperate 
fight for empire than did the one-man power at Albany to 
retain the sceptre it has wielded for so many years. ... Its 
downfall here, to-night . . . was most signal and com- 
plete." ~ On the other hand, the followers of Weed looked 
with satisfaction at the fact that at any rate Greeley had 
been defeated. The result was in truth a compromise, in 
which the two leaders of the respective factions got the worst 
of it. As for Weed, the contest marked the extent of the de- 
cline of his power. Greeley failed to receive the rewards that 
ordinarily make politics an attraction to a high-minded man, 
and his failure was pathetic. Assuredly if he had been 
elected to the Senate, he would have been an ornament to 
that body. However, in view of the embarrassment which 
he later caused to the Lincoln administration through the 
columns of the Tribune, it was perhaps well that he did not 
succeed in attaining a position where he might have done 
still more mischief. 

1 Tribune, Feb. 4; Herald, Feb. 3; Argus, Feb. 4; Barnes' Memoir 
of Weed, pp. 324-5. In the Democratic caucus, the first ballot resulted in 
F. B. Spinola receiving 13 votes, Horatio Seymour 14, Lyman Tremain 
5, scattering 6. On the second ballot, Seymour was chosen as the 
nominee, receiving 21 votes to 16 for Spinola and 1 for Samuel Nelson 
{Argus, Feb. 5). 

1 Tribune, Feb. 4. 



I3 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [336 

The election of Senator Harris brought scarcely a truce 
in the struggle between the New York Republican factions. 
During the following month, the Albany Evening Journal 
kept up a continuous attack on the Tribune directed against 
the latter's stand on national questions, 1 while the Tribune 
rebuked the Albany Journal for its lack of " decency " and 
its " acrimonious warfare of personalities." Then, atten- 
tion was directed to the engrossing subject of the appoint- 
ments of the incoming administration. The Republican 
party for the first time in its history was to possess the na- 
tional patronage, and the share of New York would be no 
mean one. The chief office in this State at the President's 
disposal was the collectorship of the port of New York. 
Soon after his election, Lincoln made known his intention 
of giving this post to Hiram Barney. 2 This was a personal 
appointment, but it was a big victory for the anti-Weed 
wing; for Barney, though not recently engaged in politics, 
was a radical and a friend of Chase. 3 The New York cus- 
tom-house had long played an important part in national 
and state politics. The patronage under Barney's control 
was very large. He was for days deluged with applica- 
tions for places, the custom-house was thronged with eager 
seekers for positions, and many persons visited the rotunda 
merely to witness this spectacle. 4 Subordinate places to the 
collectorship were given to two other prominent New York 

] E. g., Feb. 5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 23, 25. On some days there wereasmany 
as three or four editorials or editorial paragraphs directed against the 
Tribune. > 

2 Weed's Autobiography , p. 612. 

s Schucker's Chase, p. 477; Hart's Chase, p. 217. 

4 Herald, April 9, 10, 11. Barney did not make removals fast enough 
to please some, and his own removal was demanded by both New York 
City and Brooklyn Republicans {Herald, June 10: Tribune, Sept. 5, 
Oct. 21). 



337] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 137 

radicals, Rufus Andrews (appointed surveyor of the port)) 
and Henry B. Stanton. The possession of the custom-house 
by their opponents was a thorn in the side of the Seward- 
Weed faction until the spring of 1864. 1 

It was not until the middle and latter part of March that 
the New York appointments were made; and in the mean- 
time, the contest was a warm one. Both Weed and Greeley 
again journeyed to Washington. 2 Aside from the custom- 
house, the Seward-Weed wing seems to have gotten the 
better share of the spoils, notwithstanding Lincoln's ex- 
pressed determination to remain impartial with regard to 
the two New York factions. 3 The interests of the many 
friends of Seward in New York State were apparently better 
protected by the latter than were those of his opponents by 
Chase. It was not without reason that the anti-Seward 
men feared in this matter " the superior tact and pertinacity 
of Mr. Seward and of Mr. Thurlow Weed," Chase's pres- 
ence notwithstanding. 4 Gideon Welles tells us that Seward 

was vigilant and tenacious in dispensing the patronage of the 

' The number of employees in the custom-house in 1864 was estimated 
by Surveyor Andrews as 1200. The usual assessment on the employees' 
salaries for political purposes was two per cent (Testimony of Andrews 
in Weed-Opdyke suit, Herald, Dec. 30, 1864). 

^Herald, Mar. 25, 26. Lincoln's oft-quoted letter regarding the ap- 
pointment of Christopher Adams shows the intense rivalry between 
Weed and Greeley in the matter of appointments (Lincoln's Works, vi, 
p. 268). "... almost every place in New York was hotly contested 
between the Weed and anti-Weed factions" (Hart's Chase, p. 218). 

3 Ante. The Herald, March 15 (Washington dispatch) said: "Mr. 
Dana of the New York Tribune has had an interview with the Presi- 
dent, and irritated by the appointment of Mr. Littlejohn as consul to 
Liverpool, demanded to know about the New York appointments. 
The President told Mr. Dana very plainly that he should not recognise 
the existing quarrel in New York State." See also Dana's Recollec- 
tions of the Civil War, p. 2. 

4 Dana's Recollections, p. 2. 



738 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [338 

State Department, often without consulting others. On this 
point of selecting officials, or being consulted in regard to ap- 
pointments which came within the purview of his department, 
no man was more sensitive than Mr. Seward, though himself 
not always regardful of what in this respect was due to others. 1 

We have the testimony of John A. Kasson, then first as- 
sistant postmaster-general, that his chief, Montgomery Blair, 
frequently expressed dissatisfaction with Seward's inter- 
ference with appointments in the post office department. 2 
At the very beginning of the administration, Seward at- 
tempted to settle in Chase's absence the list of New York 
appointments and was unwilling that Chase should be con- 
sulted in the matter. 3 On the other hand, we find Chase in 
March, 1861, writing to Seward: "The appraisership at 
New York is vacant. Which of the two applicants do you 
prefer?" 4 In August, 1862, Chase wrote that he "spent 
much time with Weed over New York appointments," 5 and 
he recorded Weed's satisfaction with the decisions in these 
matters. 6 Moreover, Chase apparently had a high standard 
which interfered with a merely political use of the pat- 
ronage. 7 Very likely, he never felt the degree of interest 
in New York politics which Seward naturally did. 

1 Welles' Lincoln and Seward, p. 71. Writing of appointments abroad, 
C. R. Fish, on the basis of letters in the Chase MSS, says, "Seward's 
influence was probably felt in most of the more important selections" 
(American Historical Review, viii, p. 60). 

'Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 357. 

'Welles' Lincoln and/Seward, pp. 72-3. 

'Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 356. 

6 Diary and Correspondence of S. P. Chase, American Historical As- 
sociation Report for 1902, ii, p. 62. 

''Ibid., ii, pp. 79, 83. 

'Hart's Chase, p. 311; C. R. Fish, " Lincoln and the Patronage" 
(American Historical Review, viii, p. 61). 



339] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 139 

The late Democratic convention had given due expres- 
sion to the sentiments of the party in this State. The leaders 
had pointed out the path to be taken. The effect was seen 
in the debates in the Legislature during the first part of 
February on a bill appropriating five hundred thousand dol- 
lars to equip the militia of the State. The Democratic con- 
vention call had indicated such proposed legislation as a 
proper field for Democratic opposition. The Argus edi- 
torially said : " The State of New York is not in need of de- 
fence. It fears no enemies from abroad, is threatened with 
no invasion. The half-million job, which the Journal and 
the lobby are getting up, has the invasion of sister States for 
its object, not the defence of New York." x A month and a 
half after South Carolina had passed the ordinance of se- 
cession — an interval during which the South was busily 
engaged in arming — this most necessary measure was op- 
posed with all but unanimity by the Democratic members 
of the Legislature. In the Senate, a number of Democrats 
assailed the bill. 2 Only one Democrat, J. McLeod Murphy, 
spoke in its favor, declaring that he did not regard it as a 
party measure, and that if no other Democrat voted for it, 
he would. So it turned out. The bill passed, 19 to 6, the 
ayes being all Republicans except Murphy, and the nays all 
Democrats. 3 Subsequently, Senator Murphy became a 
prominent War Democrat and served as colonel at the front. 
In the Assembly, the line-up on the bill was a strictly party 
one, the Republicans supporting the measure and the Demo- 
crats opposing it. Mr. Kernan, the Democratic leader on 
the floor, asserted that there was no need for so great an 
expenditure; there was no danger of domestic insurrec- 

1 Argus, Jan, 28; similar editorials, Jan. 30, Feb. 8, n, 12. 
1 Herald, Jan. 30, Feb. 8; Argus, Jan. 30, Feb. 4, 8. 
'Senate Journal, 1861, p. 151. 



I 4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [340 

tion or of invasion, and there would be no use for troops 
at Washington or anywhere else; the true purpose of the 
bill was to provide jobs for a few contractors. 1 The Demo- 
crats succeeded in delaying for the time action on the 
bill. On the other hand, the Republicans opposed an at- 
tempt in the Senate to have considered a bill providing for 
the submission of the Crittenden amendments to the peo- 
ple, and finally buried the measure by reference to a com- 
mittee. 2 

During the rest of that month and March, the Legisla- 
ture proceeded with its ordinary business. There were some 
skirmishes between the Republicans and the Democrats on 
such topics as the demands of the South, the Governor's mes- 
sage, the Kansas Relief Bill, and the Chicago platform ; 3 
but there was a lull in the secession movement then, a good 
part of the hundred days' session provided for in the state 
constitution had been used up, and committees were by that 
time ready to report. So, for a while, Broadway railroad 
schemes, canal extensions, and the usual variety of proposed 
legislation received most of the attention of the members. 

On the 10th of April, however, the bill appropriating half 
a million to equip the militia was brought up. With the 
aid of many Republicans, an amendment offered by Mr. 
Robinson, providing that no money appropriated should 
be used unless it became actually necessary to call out the 
militia of the State, was adopted and the bill recommitted. 4 
But two days later, after the arrival of the news of the 
firing on Fort Sumter, a bill providing for a similar object, 

1 Argus, Feb. 9; Herald, Feb. 9. 

* Argus, Jan. 31; Herald, Jan. 31; Senate Journal, 1861, pp. 77, 115. 
5 Argus, Mar. 1, 2, 22; Herald, Mar. 2; Tribune, Feb. 20. 

* Ayes, 78, noes, 28; Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 904. 



341 ] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 141 

already passed by the Senate, was reported in the Assembly 
and passed by a vote of 78 to 25. 1 The days immediately 
following 1 the 14th of April saw a patriotic rising of the 
masses, and nowhere was the revolution more remarkable 
than in New York. A conference of the important state 
officials and the military and financial committees of both 
houses of the Legislature was immediately held at the Gov- 
ernor's mansion. A committee of those present drew up a 
bill authorizing the Governor to enroll for two years thirty 
thousand volunteers, appropriating three million dollars, 
and providing a tax for these purposes. 2 The bill was 
printed on the night of the 14th ; and on the next day, with 
a provision establishing a state military board composed 
of the governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, 
comptroller, and attorney-general, the measure was intro- 
duced, put through all stages, and passed in both houses. 8 

The attitude of the Democratic members, who but re- 
cently had opposed with practical unanimity the five hun- 
dred thousand dollars appropriation, showed how the news 
of Sumter's fall broke down party lines, shattered the 
united front of the Democracy, and overthrew the platform 
formulated by the late Democratic convention. Some of 
the legislators of that party tried to have a caucus called, 
so as to decide upon a line of party action in this emergency. 
But a caucus could not be gotten together. 4 Few on this 
occasion resisted the tidal wave of patriotism. In the As- 

1 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 969. The bill passed the Senate by a 
strictly party vote. 

'Article by J. Meredith Read (Governor Morgan's adjutant-gen- 
eral) in the Magazine of American History, xiv, p. 50. 

s Read's article, Magazine of American History, xiv, p. 51 ; Assembly 
Journal, 1861, pp. 1025, 1026; Senate Journal, 1861, pp. 607, 608, 609. 

* Herald, April 16. 



I4 2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [342 

sembly, one Democrat said that he voted for the bill not as 
a Democrat but as an individual loving his country; yet, 
he continued, his vote was not for a moment to be con- 
strued as an endorsement of the Republican party; to its 
refusal to compromise was charged the unhappy situation 
of the country's affairs ; nevertheless, " the national capital 
was in danger and it was the hour for every true lover of 
his country to rally to its defence. ..." Another Demo- 
crat said : " It is not now for me to say whether the na- 
tional administration be right or wrong." Still another, 
Fulton of Saratoga County, declared that he should fear 
to return home if he did not vote for the bill, lest the pa- 
triots buried there would rise up against him. A Demo- 
cratic member from Suffolk knew of no party in this issue. 
Only two Democrats spoke against the measure as being 
unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unfavorable to concilia- 
tion. 1 The bill passed 102 to 6, the nays being given by 
Democrats from New York City. 2 In the Senate, Mr. 
Spinola charged the Republican party with being respon- 
sible for the crisis, but said that it was " no time to 
bandy words " and accordingly he favored the bill. An- 
other Democrat, Colvin, regretted the utterance of such 
remarks in view of the subject. " This was no time to talk 
of party. He should not stop to consider whether this or 
that party was to blame." In all, three senators of each 
side spoke for the bill, which was then passed with but two 
votes against it. 3 On the next day, the bill was signed by 

1 Argus, April 16; Herald, April 16; Tribune, April 16. The nays 
were cast by Cozans, Hardy, Kenny, Varian, Walsh, and Young. 

8 Assembly Journal, 1861, p. 1026. 

'Senate Journal, 1861, p. 609; Herald, April 16; Argus, April 17; 
article by J. Meredith Read, Magazine of American History , xiv, p. 52 
(which erroneously gives the nays as three). The nays were Lawrence 
(Dem. of Queens) and Gardiner (Dem. of Kings). 



343] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR I43 

the Governor. 1 Thus within three days, New York gave its 
official answer — and a significant one too — to South Caro- 
lina. 

The action of the state government was sustained by the 
people. The series of great meetings held throughout the 
State testified to the fact that, for a while at least, party 
strife and recrimination were stilled. In the days im- 
mediately following the firing upon Fort Sumter thous- 
ands of Democrats, who subsequently refused to lay 
aside their party, united with the Republicans in a 
noble demonstration in support of the administration. 
Perhaps some politicians were insincere and were swept 
along. The masses, however, were actuated by patriotic 
motives. In these meetings, Republicans, Douglas Demo- 
crats, Breckinridge Democrats, Tammany men, Mozart 
men, and Bell-Everettites all joined. The prevailing sen- 
timent was expressed by ex-President Fillmore, who said 
at the Buffalo meeting : " The government calls for aid and 
we must give it. It is no time now to inquire by whose 
fault or folly this state of things has been produced." 2 

At Albany, Erastus Corning, Regency leader and Demo- 
cratic congressman, presided over a great meeting called 
by the Democratic committee. 3 There, Lyman Tremain, 
who but a few months before had expressed himself in so 
violent terms against coercion, as well as others pledged the 
Democratic party to stand by the national government in 
preserving the Union; and these utterances received the 
enthusiastic approval of upwards of eight thousand per- 
sons present. 4 At Oswego, men of all parties united in 

1 Tribune, April 17. ^Herald, April 17. 

* Argus, April 23. * Tribune, April 23. 



I44 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [344 

passing resolutions which approved the action of the Presi- 
dent and that of the Legislature, denounced the rebellion, 
and declared for the wiping out of party lines during such 
critical times. 1 At Kingston, 2 Troy, 3 Auburn, 4 Hudson, 5 
Watertown, 6 Canandaigua, 7 Geneva, 8 Dunkirk, 9 and Sche- 
nectady 10 the citizens, regardless of former political affilia- 
tions, participated in similar demonstrations. Rochester's 
meeting of like character resolved to sustain the gov- 
ernment at any cost. 11 Side by side with Republicans, 
there took part in these assemblages prominent Demo- 
crats like Daniel S. Dickinson at the Binghamton 
meeting, 12 Francis Kernan at Utica, 13 ex-Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor Church at Albion, 14 and Heman J. Redfield at Ba- 
tavia. 15 From all over the State, there were reported great 
outpourings of men of all parties, exalted non-partisan sen- 
timents, and tremendous enthusiasm. 

The most imposing demonstration of all was the great 
Union meeting in New York City. Before the war, 
that term meant a pro-slavery, anti-Republican gather- 
ing. With the firing on Fort Sumter, the significance of the 
expression changed, thereafter denoting a patriotic assem- 
blage for the purpose of pledging support to the govern- 
ment against Southern secessionists. On Monday, the 15th 
of April, a number of prominent gentlemen held a pre- 
liminary conference. 16 As a result of this and subsequent 

' Herald, April 19. 2 Herald, April 19. 

3 Argus, April 16. * Argus, April 20. 

5 Argus, April 20. ' 6 Argus, April 26. 

''Argus, April 20. 8 Argus, April 24. 

9 Argus, April 21. ,0 Argus, April 22. 

11 Herald, April 19. n Argus, April 20. 

"Argus, April 22. " Argus, April 24. 

15 Argus, April 27. I6 Herald, April 17. 



j 45 ] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR i^ 

consultations, the citizens " without regard to previous 
political opinions " were called upon to assemble at Union 
Square on the following Saturday at three o'clock, " to 
express their sentiment in the present crisis in our national 
affairs and their determination to uphold the government 
of their country and maintain the authority of its consti- 
tution and its laws." It was also recommended that all 
places of business be closed at two o'clock. The call for 
this meeting was signed by many of the most distinguished 
citizens of all parties, including John A. Dix, ex-Governor 
Hamilton Fish, Peter Cooper, George Opdyke, William F. 
Havemeyer, William M. Evarts, Alexander T. Stewart, 
William Earl Dodge, William Curtis Noyes, John Coch- 
rane, William B. Astor, August Belmont, Elijah F. Purdy, 
Greene C. Bronson, Samuel Sloan, John J. Cisco, A. A. 
Low, Moses H. Grinnell, and hundreds of others. 1 The 
committee on resolutions and speakers, with John A. Dix 
— a life-long Democrat — at its head, likewise embraced men 
of all parties. 2 

On the appointed day, April 20th, over 50,000 persons 
were estimated to have packed Union Square and the 
vicinity. There were four stands, two of which were re- 
spectively presided over by Dix and Fish. The non-par- 
tisan character of the demonstration was further shown by 
the list of vice-presidents. In addition to those who signed 
the call, the roll of those who thus lent their names to the 
meeting included James T. Brady, Cornelius Vanderbilt, 
Orestes A. Brownson, George Law, Henry J. Raymond, 
Horace Greeley, Richard O'Gorman, Edwin Croswell, H. 
B. Claflin, Abram S. Hewitt, David Dudley Field, Peter 
Lorillard, Erastus Brooks, Augustus Schell, John T. Hoff- 

1 Herald, April 18 , 19. 
1 Herald, April 19. 



I4 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [346 

man, dozens of others prominent in politics, business, or the 
professions, and even Fernando Wood. The last mentioned 
made a very patriotic speech, pledging support to the admin- 
istration. In upholding the constitution, the Union, the 
government, the laws and the flag, he said, 

he cared not what past political associations might be severed. 
He was willing to give up all sympathies, and, if they pleased, 
all errors of judgment upon all national questions. . . . He 
knew no party now. He called upon every man, whatever had 
been his sympathies, to make one grand phalanx in this con- 
troversy, to proceed ... to conquer a peace. 1 

If Wood was sincere on this occasion, it must have been a 
temporary aberration. It is perhaps more in accord with 
his other utterances, both before and after this occasion, to 
attribute his speech at the New York meeting to demagogy. 
The finance committee appointed at this great demonstra- 
tion was another evidence of its character, being composed 
of twelve Republicans and of fourteen of those who had 
hitherto acted in opposition to that party. 2 The prevailing 
idea of the speakers was that of ex-Governor Fish 
who said : " Thank God, I look now upon a multitude that 
knows no party divisions — no Whigs, no Democrats or 
Republicans." 3 

1 Herald, April 21, 24; Tribune, April 22. The Tribune subsequently 
gave the following explanation of Wood's speech: "When the great 
Union meeting in Unipn Square was about to be held, General Dix at 
the head of a committee, invited Wood to speak, distinctly informing 
him that no semi-secession sentiments would be allowed to pass his 
lips, and if he refused to speak at all the fact would be marked against 
him. For once this bold, bad man cowered before the fiat of an aroused 
people" {Tribune, Nov. 29, 1861). I have found no evidence to cor- 
roborate this. 

1 Herald, April 21 . • Ibid. 



347] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR i^y 

Meanwhile, on April 19th, the merchants of the City met 
in the Chamber of Commerce, and resolved unanimously to 
uphold the national authorities and to urge a strict block- 
ade of all ports in the seceded states; $21,000 to move 
troops was raised in ten minutes; and a committee was 
designated to aid in procuring the immediate subscription 
of the remaining nine million dollars of the government 
loan. 1 On the 22d, Mayor Wood recommended and the 
Board of Aldermen voted a million dollars for the defence 
of the government. 2 

The revolution in sentiment was indeed remarkable. 3 So 
it seemed to the New Orleans Picayune, which said : 

We are unwilling to believe the telegraphic reports of the total 
apostacy of the majority of the citizens of the City of New 
York, who have ever professed to be the friends of the South, 
and the opponents of Black Republicanism, as their vote in the 
late Presidential contest exhibited . . . the change is certainly 
very extraordinary. What has become of the Union proces- 
sion of the bone and sinew of New York City, which turned 
out seven miles in length in opposition to the Wide Awakes? 
We shall wait for confirmation before we are willing to believe 
in the apostacy of New York City. 4 

That confirmation soon came. In the days when the pa- 
triotic enthusiasm aroused by the firing on Fort Sumter 
was still unspent, Tammany Hall, forgetting what its repre- 
sentatives had stood for in February, 5 adopted resolutions 

1 Annual Cyclopcsdia for 1861, p. 531. 

2 Annual Cyclopcedia for 1861, p. 532. 

'Rhodes' History of the United States, iii, pp. 370-2 and footnote. 
*New Orleans Picayune, quoted in the Tribune, May 1. 
5 At the Democratic State Convention in February, 1861, Tammany's 
delegates adopted an address to which was appended, among other re- 



j 4 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [348 

worthy of its past glory. These resolutions declared that 
the Democracy, as one man, were " heartily united to up- 
hold the constitution, enforce the laws, maintain the Union, 
defend the flag, and protect the Capital of the United 
States;" it was further resolved to display upon the front 
of the old Wigwam, until the war was over, Jackson's in- 
spiring words : " The Union must and shall be preserved." x 
Tammany determined moreover to raise a regiment, 2 and it 
did so, with William D. Kennedy, who not long after was 
chosen grand sachem, as colonel. So strong was the feel- 
ing of the people that Mozart Hall could not afford to be 
behind Tammany in patriotism, and accordingly Mozart 
too set about raising a regiment. 3 

In fact, the people moved more quickly than many of 
the Democratic politicians. There is evidence that some 
prominent Democrats in New York State were swept along 
by the revolutionary tide most unwillingly. Francis Ker- 
nan, then the Democratic leader in the Assembly, having 
been absent from the session of April 1 5th, made a speech on 
the following day, in which he declared that because he be- 
lieved there was danger of attempts on the national capital, 
he favored furnishing the federal government with means 
to repel such an aggression. " But," he continued, 

I am opposed to, and I trust the National Government will not 
attempt to carry an aggressive war into the Southern States. 
Such a war will neither preserve or restore the Union. ... If, 

solves, this: "That we will, by all proper and legitimate means, oppose, 
discountenance, and prevent any attempt on the part of the Republicans 
in power to make any armed aggression under the plea of ' enforcing 
the laws' or 'preserving the Union' upon the Southern States" (Ad- 
dress and resolves printed in full in the Argtis, Feb. 2). 

1 Tribune, April 27. J Herald, May 3. 

' Herald, May 12. 



349] POLITICS AT THE EVE OF THE WAR 14 g 

then, we cannot adjust our differences now by concessions 
which will make us one people, is it not better to separate 
peaceably ? x 

The Argus commended Kernan's speech as discriminat- 
ing and patriotic. The leading editorial of this paper on 
April 15th said, "We are two nations henceforth." It 
further asserted that the war was not for the vindication of 
the Union but for its dissolution; that the administration 
merely waited to recognize separation until public opin- 
ion was ripe for it. Another editorial in the same issue, 
entitled "A False Alarm — Its Fraudulent Object," de- 
clared that an attack upon Washington was impossible, and 
continued : The defense of Washington is a mere pretence 
for this armament. Do not let us rush into a war against 
the Southern Confederacy, for the abolition of slavery, un- 
der the influence of a panic of this kind." And on this 
same day, the same paper said : 

The President . . . has issued a requisition for 75,000 troops 
from the States. Where does he find the power to do this? 
Congress refused to pass any laws for such a purpose. The 
existing acts of Congress confer no such authority. . . . Let 
not our Democratic legislators be decoyed into countenancing 
any such act of usurpation. Stand by the Constitution and 
Laws, but resist usurpation ! 2 

The New York Express and the Utica Observer pub- 
lished similar utterances. 3 But on the 19th, the Argus came 
out strongly for the support of the national government ; 4 
and a few days later, it spoke of the Albany meeting as 

1 Argus, April 17. ' Argus, April 15. 

"Quoted in Greeley's American Conflict, i, p. 455. 
* Argus, April 19. 



I5 NE W YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [350 

composed of " citizens heretofore of all parties, who are 
proud to unite themselves henceforth to the party of the 
Union. . . ." * The tide among the masses was too strong 
to be resisted. Alas that in many the noble impulse to bury 
party action during the country's crisis so soon spent its 
force ! 

1 Argus, April 23. 



CHAPTER V 

The Genesis of the Union Party in New York State 

The claim subsequently made for partisan purposes that 
the North was united until Lincoln entered upon an aboli- 
tion course is erroneous so far as New York State, one of 
the most important centers of opposition to the adminis- 
tration, is concerned. Whatever unanimity existed, lasted 
there at the most only until the defeat at Bull Run. Even 
before that, the Argus had in editorials at the end of April 
and the beginning of May denounced any perversion of the 
war into an emancipation crusade; and in May and the 
following months, it came out strongly against the " no 
party" idea, pointing to continued wholesale displacement of 
Democratic postmasters. " Let the removals go on, if the 
Administration wishes it," this paper said, " but let this no 
party pretence be given up, ..." * In this same month, the 
Argus condemned as a high-handed outrage the govern- 
ment's seizure of dispatches ; 2 in June, it attacked the arrest 
of Marshal Kane; 3 and at the end of August, it assailed the 
Republicans because of the measures directed against the 
Journal of Commerce and other New York Democratic 
papers accused of disloyalty. 4 As early as May, Benjamin 

1 Argus, May 21. 

* Argus, May 22. 

1 Argus, June 29. For this incident, see the Annual Cyclopcedia for 
1861, p. 360. 

* Argus, Aug. 31. 

351] 151 



1^2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [352 

Wood in his Daily News was abusing the administration 
and denouncing the war. 

On the 27th of June, an editorial convention, represent- 
ing thirteen papers opposed to the war, met at the Astor 
House. The only prominent member of the convention was 
Wood, and the principal Democratic organs in the State 
were not represented. 1 The resolutions adopted declared 
that the first requisite to a restoration of the Union was 
peace; that the alarming and deplorable condition of the 
country was mainly due to the exercise of unconstitutional 
powers by the President, who had " not hesitated to in- 
augurate a war, to enlist a large standing army, to increase 
the navy, to seize private papers, to deny citizens the right 
to bear arms, and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, all 
of which are in direct violation ... of the constitution of 
the United States." The resolutions further pointed out 
the burden of the enormous war expenses and the 
danger of a standing army, denounced the Morrill tariff 
as " simply a part of the machinery of monarchy to enrich 
the few at the expense of the many," and concluded by 
asserting that the Republican party had proved that "all its 
pretensions of devotion to ' freedom, free speech and free 
discussion ' were simply cloaks to conceal their [sic] real 
enmity to liberty, . . . and that the attempt to muzzle the 
Democratic press by mobs and terrorism . . . deserves the 
sternest condemnation." 2 

From the early summer of 1861, the peace press con- 
tinued this violent criticism of the administration. The 
following is a sample from the New York Daily News: 

1 Herald, June 28; the Argus (June 24) severely condemned the whole 
affair. 

a Herald, June 28. 



353] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY ^3 

The extra session convened by President Lincoln came together 
for the avowed object of promptly endorsing the most stu- 
pendous series of frauds, political villainies, and usurpations of 
power that have been perpetrated in any civilized country since 
the days of Henry the Eighth. . . and it has fulfilled its mis- 
sion, with a reckless disregard of conscience and duty worthy 
of the satellites of an abolition administration. It has virtually 
abrogated democratic government, and inaugurated a worse 
than Mohamedan [sic] despotism. It has set at naught the sol- 
emn precepts of the fathers of the republic ; treated the consti- 
tution as a dead letter ; passed laws of the most fundamentally 
destructive and unconstitutional character ; given its sanction 
to murders, massacres, illegal imprisonments, robberies of the 
treasury, and the withdrawal of all security of life and prop- 
erty to private citizens, and foreshadowed negro insurrections, 
wholesale confiscations and authorized anarchy as a necessary 
portion of the immediate future. 1 

In the middle of August, the Daily News, the Journal 
of Commerce, the Day Book, and the Freeman's Journal, all 
published in New York City, and the Brooklyn Eagle were 
the subjects of a presentment by a grand jury in the United 
States Circuit Court, being charged with frequently encour- 
aging the rebels by expressions of sympathy and agreement 
with them. 2 Soon after, the use of the mails was forbidden 
to these papers. 3 In September, the Westchester County 

1 Daily News, July 22, quoted in the Herald, July 23. 

' Herald, Aug. 17; Annual Cyclopedia for 1861, p. 329. Three very 
small meetings in favor of peace were held in New York State about 
this time; one in Nyack {Tribune, July 13); another by the inhabi- 
tants of Broome, Delaware, and Chenango Counties {Tribune, Aug. 5); 
and a third in Schoharie County (Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 1). 
In New York City, a peace petition was seized by Superintendent of 
Police Kennedy. These meetings were attended by so few persons 
that they have little significance. 

8 Tribune, Aug. 25; Annual Cyclopedia for 1861, p. 329. The Daily 



!54 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [354 

Grand Jury presented a number of New York papers, in- 
cluding the Yonkers Herald and the New York Staats 
Zeitung as tending to give aid and comfort to the enemies 
of the government. 1 Later, the Franklin County Gazette 
was suppressed and its editor lodged in Fort Lafayette. 2 
New York State seems to have had more of these peace 
papers than other Northern states, 3 and these disloyal sheets 
were by no means confined to the metropolis and its vicinity 
but were scattered throughout the State. They kept at- 
tacking the administration's measures, harping on the con- 
stitution and personal rights, and advocating peace. They 
stimulated opposition, and contributed toward' the sub- 
sidence of the patriotic movement of April, '61 in favor 
of the laying aside of parties during the war. 

It would be an error, however, to attribute too much in- 
fluence to these newspapers, which for the most part had 
but small circulations. Such guidance, the state Demo- 
cratic organization steadily refused to follow. But, on the 
other hand, when the time came in the early days of Au- 
gust, 1861, for the party leaders to decide on their course 
in view of the crisis in the country's affairs, the Democrats 
deliberately rejected an opportunity to continue the una- 
nimity of sentiment which the fall of Fort Sumter had 
brought about, and chose to support the war and oppose 

News soon after suspended publication (resumed in 1863); McMasters, 
editor of the Freeman's Journal, and Reeves, editor of the Greenpoint 
Watchman, were sent to Fort Lafayette; and the Journal of Commerce 
changed editors. 

1 Herald, Sept. 10. 2 Annual Cyclopaedia for 1861, p. 330. 

s In the list of "peace newspapers" published in the Daily News 
(quoted in the Herald, Aug. 21), New York State leads with twenty- 
four; Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut come next with thir- 
teen, seven, and five respectively. To the twenty-four should be added 
three more in Westchester County, one on Long Island, and two Ger- 
man papers in New York City — all not included in the list. 



355] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 155 

the administration — an illogical position which could but 
lead to a renewal of divisions among the people. 

On the 6th of August, the Republican State Committee 
invited the Democratic State Committee to call the Demo- 
cratic State Convention at the same time and place as the 
Republican convention, in order that they might unite on a 
Union ticket pledged to "a vigorous prosecution of the war, 
for the restoration of the authority of the constitution and 
the execution of the federal laws in all sections of the coun- 
try." 1 This move was both patriotic and magnanimous, 
the offer coming from the stronger to the weaker side. 
It was also wise politically, since its rejection by the Demo- 
crats would rightly expose the latter to the charge of foster- 
ing divisions in the North. Indeed, if the Democrats were 
in favor of the war to maintain the constitution — as they 
constantly averred — the platform proffered was one upon 
which both parties might well have joined without sacrificing 
the principles of either. Such a result would have strength- 
ened the administration in its efforts to subdue the rebellion, 
and very likely would have aided in bringing about similar 
action in other states. 2 Thus there might have been formed 
a Union party whose only opponent in the North would 
have been the peace advocates. That the politicians who con- 
trolled the organization in New York failed to rise to such 
an act of statesmanship is not astonishing when one con- 
siders the force of party ties, the power of the idea of pre- 
serving the party machinery, the repugnance to the " black 

'These resolutions are printed in the Herald, Aug. 7. 

2 Apparently, the New York State Republican and Democratic Com- 
mittees led the way in regard to this matter. By the middle of August, 
the Republicans of Ohio and Vermont had made similar offers. The 
New York Democratic State Committee was the first to decline 
{Tribune, Aug. 10). 



156 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [356 

Republican " party, and the hope of gaining advantages 
over it in the future. 

When the Democratic State Committee met, all of the 
members except Ben Wood were in favor of coming out for 
a vigorous prosecution of the war but accompanied by the 
olive-branch of compromise. It was clear that the mass of 
the people in this State would give no support at that time 
to an anti-war party. On the other hand, the Democrats 
had been preaching compromise for months; and to some 
this perhaps still seemed the most patriotic course and the 
one best calculated to end the rebellion. Furthermore such a 
policy appealed to the politicians who looked forward to the 
time when a reunited Democracy would again dispense the 
nation's patronage. The Democratic committee accordingly 
refused to accept the invitation of the Republicans. The 
declination hypocritically declared that the Democrats 
were " ready to unite in political action with every citizen 
who looks to the preservation of the constitution and the 
perpetuation of the Union as the great end to be arrived 
at . .' . ;" they believed that the government should at 
all times " hold out terms of peace and accommodation to 
the dissevered States." Above all, they repelled the idea 
of an irrepressible conflict between the North and the South 
which could " only terminate in the subjugation of one or 
the other." While condemning secession, they abhorred 
" that aggressive and fanatical sectional policy which has so 
largely contributed to the present danger of the country." 
They would unite with those who favored honesty in the 
national and state governments and in the award of con- 
tracts, and the expulsion of corrupt persons from office. 1 

Sufficient condemnation of the committee's action is found 

'Reply of the Democratic State Committee, printed in the Herald, 
Aug. 9. 



357] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY ^7 

in the call adopted by it for the Democratic State Convention. 
This document invited the participation of all citizens who 
believed (among other things) that the crisis demanded the 
subordination of the interests of party to those of the coun- 
try. 1 The State Committee of the Constitutional Union 
party resolved that " If partisan strife . . . [is] still to 
engross the public mind . . . , there is but little hope for 
the permanency of the confederacy. May we not, then, 
hope that party or political distinctions may be obliterated 
in this State?" 2 We have already noticed the action of 
the Republicans toward effecting the same result. The fact 
that the various parties found it advisable to advocate this 
relinquishment of party shows that the mass of the people 
would have welcomed a temporary cessation of the custom- 
ary contention. The responsibility for preventing that 
which would have greatly strengthened the North in its 
struggle with rebellion must largely rest upon the Demo- 
cratic politicians, and not least upon Dean Richmond and 
his associates on the Democratic State Committee of New 
York. 

Light on the policy thus adopted by the Regency leaders 
is shed by an editorial which appeared about this time in 
their organ, the Albany Argus. After stating that there 
were four conceivable ways of treating the war, two of 
which — separation and emancipation — the Democrats em- 
phatically opposed, and the third — subjugation — they 
deemed incapable of restoring the Union, the writer goes 
on to speak of the fourth possible course, namely restora- 
tion, as follows: 

'Call of the Democratic State Committee, printed in the Hetald, 
Aug. 10. 

1 Resolutions of the State Executive Committee, printed in the 
Herald, Aug. 18. 



I5 8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [358 

Loyalty cannot be restored in a rebellious people except by 
concessions on the part of the Government ... we think the 
Union is to be restored by the same spirit of forbearance, con- 
ciliation, and compromise, which inspired our fathers . . . and 
that " a vigorous prosecution of the war should be accom- 
panied by the most liberal proffers of peace." If we are 
tauntingly asked what terms of compromise we propose, we 
answer such as Holt, Crittenden, Guthrie, Johnson, and other 
tried and devoted Union men in the Border States shall say 
are necessary to build up a Union party and restore loyalty at 
the South. 1 

What was the object of such a policy? The organ of Tam- 
many, the New York Leader, said : " . . . the Democratic 
party of the State of New York may wield an all but om- 
nipotent influence over the final shaping of those events and 
mutual concessions which must precede a return of the now 
revolted States to their allegiance." 2 

In the middle of August, the Breckinridge State Com- 
mittee met. They decided to hold no separate convention 
but to participate in the election of delegates to the Demo- 
cratic convention already called by their former rivals, the 
" softs ". And thus, the " hards " disappeared from the 
political history of the State. Some of them were good 
material for the future development of Copperheadism. 
In their resolutions adopted on this occasion, they deplored 
the " long predicted result of the Northern sectional ag- 
gressions upon the rights of the Southern States;" re- 
peated the assertion that " the worst and most ineffectual 
argument that can be addressed to the seceding States is 
war ;" they denied that the war was in any sense " a war 

1 Quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 16. 
'Quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 20. 



359] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 159 

for the Union " ; they advocated " an armistice between the 
now contending armies . . . and the immediate convo- 
cation of delegates from all the States " to adjust all dif- 
ferences; and they denounced aggressions on free speech 
and a free press, arbitrary arrests, the denial of the right 
of petition, the defiance of the courts by the military, " the 
suppression of newspapers, the deprivation of the militia 
of their arms, the declaration and enforcement of martial 
law, and the unauthorized seizures and searches without 
sanction of legal proofs." x Fortunately this faction was 
no longer very strong in the State, and the number repre- 
sented by this committee was small compared to the great 
mass of Democrats there. Not long after, a letter signed 
by Gideon J. Tucker, who was prominent in Mozart Hall, 
and three others announced the formation in New York 
City of an organization " opposed to the coercion of States, 
hostile to the arbitrary and unconstitutional acts of the 
present Federal Administration, and in favor of peace and 
a restoration of the Union." 2 The presence of such men 
as these extremists in the ranks of the New York Democ- 
racy formed a force moving towards disloyalty. 

When the Democratic State Convention met at Syra- 
cuse on September 4th, the peace faction was on hand in 
great strength. In some degree this was due to the fact 
that the former Breckinridge men participated in the choice 
of delegates, while, on the other hand, some Democrats who 
believed in laying aside politics during the war, did not. 
Prominent among the anti-war delegates were Ben Wood, 
John A. Green, chairman of the late Breckinridge State 
Committee : Gideon J. Tucker, and McMasters, editor of the 
notoriously disloyal sheet, the Freeman's Journal. The 

1 Resolutions of the committee, printed in the Herald, Aug. 16. 
1 Circular letter printed in the Tribune, Sept. 2. 



j6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [360 

peace men were exceedingly active, working for resolu- 
tions in accord with their ideas. 1 Indeed, as the delegates 
gathered, attention was centered on the platform, and but 
little was said of the ticket to be nominated. 2 

The Regency forces were led by Dean Richmond, Peter 
Cagger, and Sanford E. Church; and through the pos- 
session of the state committee and thereby of the presiding 
officer of the convention, they had control of the committees 
of the convention. Nevertheless, the peace men were strong 
enough to upset the Regency's plans. From New York 
City came contesting delegations chosen respectively by 
Tammany and Mozart. The latter had, previous to the 
assembling of the convention, offered the olive-branch to 
Tammany on the basis of an equal division of the seats of 
New York County; 8 but Tammany refused, and at the 
same time adopted resolutions expressing its determination 
to support the government in suppressing treason and main- 
taining the Union. 4 Immediately after the organization of 
the convention, the rival claims of Tammany and Mozart 
came up. Because of the well-founded suspicion that Mo- 
zart was not heartily in favor of the war, 5 the question in- 
volved more than mere regularity. 6 The majority of the 
committee on contested seats reported in favor of seating 

1 Herald, Sept. 5; Argus, Sept. 5. 

9 Herald, Sept. 5. 

"Resolutions of the Mozart General Committee, printed in the 
Herald, Aug. 20. 

* Resolutions of the,Tammany Hall General Committee, printed in 
the Herald, Aug. 30. 

5 It is not intended to imply that all the followers of Mozart were at 
this time against the war. The Herald correspondent wrote, "I find 
that the Mozart delegation is about evenly divided on the war question " 
{Herald, Sept. 5). 

6 Argus, Sept. 6. 



361] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 161 

the Tammany delegates. A delegate moved as a substitute 
to admit both Tammany and Mozart, each to have seven- 
teen votes. The substitute was adopted, no to 98, the fol- 
lowers of the Regency voting against it. 1 Thereupon, Tam- 
many withdrew to consult. 

The Regency had suffered a defeat; but the convention 
having adjourned to the next day, Richmond and his aids 
labored for a reconsideration, declaring that the admis- 
sion of Mozart would be construed as an endorsement of 
Ben Wood and the anti-war policy of the Daily News. 2 
The Tammany delegation in the meantime had adopted 
and circulated a protest, 3 asserting that their organization 
was " honestly and earnestly in favor of prosecuting the 
war and of yielding to the government in all legitimate 
measures ... a zealous support ;" that " in entertaining 
these sentiments," Tammany was " widely and irreconcil- 
ably different in opinion and action from the Mozart Hall 
organization;" and that Tammany therefore declined to 
participate further in the convention. Immediately on the 
reassembling of that body on the second day, however, a 
motion to reconsider the vote admitting both Tammany and 
Mozart was made and carried, 114 to 87. Then came the 
main question. The substitute adopted on the preceding 
day was now defeated, the majority report of the committee 

1 Herald, Sept. 5; report of the chairman of the committee of the 
Mozart delegation (in the Tribune, Sept. 10) . 

1 Herald, Sept. 5, 6. " This result astounded the managers, who ob- 
tained a ready adjournment, avowing their determination to reverse the 
proceedings on the next day. ... by threats, fraudulent appliances 
and the most disgraceful deceptions and misrepresentations, they were 
successful" (Report of the Mozart delegation, printed in the Tribune, 
Sept. 10). The report goes on to protest that Mozart is loyal. "It is 
true the Regency and their Tammany allies alleged that we were of 
doubtful patriotism . . . ." 

s Printed in the Herald, Sept. 8. 



j6 2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL W AR [362 

on contested seats was adopted, Mozart withdrew, and 
Tammany entered into sole possession of New York 
County's representation. 1 

The number of nays in the vote to reconsider showed 
the strength of the peace advocates. When it came to the 
adoption of the platform, they won a decided victory. The 
contest occurred over what was subsequently known during 
the campaign as the " ninth resolution ". This read : 

We protest against the doctrine that any power except the 
representatives of the people, can suspend the writ of habeas 
corpus for civil offences. We protest against the assumption 
of the executive power to establish a system of passports ; 
against the right of the federal government to organize sys- 
tems of State police; against the assumption of the federal 
executive to suppress the discussions of a free press, by the 
refusal of mail facilities, or in any way except the decisions 
of the civil tribunals ; and that, finally, we protest against the 
doctrine of President Lincoln's message, that the States derive 
their authority from the federal government, as subversive of 
the fundamental doctrine of American liberty. . . . 2 

This plank had been adopted by the committee on resolu- 
tions and then stricken out by it. In the convention, a dele- 
gate moved that the omitted resolution be restored. After 
discussion, the motion was carried. 8 

The rest of the platform, adopted for the most part with- 
out debate, asserted that the Democracy's watchword in 
the crisis should' be, " The Union must and shall be pre- 

1 Herald, Sept. 6. 

* Herald, Sept. 8. The Herald of Sept. 6, which contains the rest of 
the platform, gives only a summary of the ninth resolution. 

3 Herald, Sept. 6. 



^6' ] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 163 

seried ;" condemned secession as revolution ; declared that 
thelseizure of the forts and federal property precipitated 
the War, and that it was " the duty of the government to 
prosecute the war thus forced upon it with all its power " 
and of the people " to rally ... to the support of the gov- 
ernment until the struggle is ended by the triumph of the 
Constitution and laws, and the restoration of the Union;" 
blamed the Northern politicians for stirring up between the 
North and the South an " irrepressible conflict " ; asserted 
that the loss of the border states was due to the obstinacy 
of the Republicans in adhering to the Chicago platform; 
and charged the prolongation of the war by another year, 
adding millions of dollars and thousands of lives to the cost, 
to the same cause. Another resolution recommended that 
Congress offer to the loyal people of the South a 
convention of all the states to revise and amend the consti- 
tution. Further, it was declared that the Democracy would 
regard " any attempt to pervert this conflict for the eman- 
cipation of the slaves as fatal to all the hopes for the res- 
toration of the Union ", and that the Democrats would not 
support such a war; the Republican administration should 
abandon the Chicago platform, expel the corrupt from office, 
exclude from its councils advocates of separation and abol- 
itionists, and reconstruct the cabinet. Then the resolutions 
thanked the soldiers and promised to protect them from 
the politicians and contractors, and closed with the assertion 
that a Democratic victory in New York State would be 
hardly less auspicious for the cause of the Union than the 
triumph of the federal arms. 1 

The platform was thus of that mixed character so often 
found in such documents. Even as reported from the com- 
mittee, it faced both ways, the strong war resolutions with 

1 Herald, Sept. 6. 



!64 new YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [364 

which it opened and which alone must have satisfied any 
supporter of the war being offset by the second half of 
the resolutions with their flings at the Republicans, their 
threat not to support the war should an attempt be made 
to emancipate the slaves, and their general upholding of 
party lines. But the addition of the ninth resolution gave 
a disloyal tone to the whole platform, and was so considered 
by a great majority of the voters, as the election showed. 1 
It was reported that Dean Richmond after the close of 
the convention denounced this resolution in the most bitter 
terms. 2 Yet, curiously enough, this plank, which was op- 
posed in the convention by the Regency managers, and 
the adoption of which was rightfully considered a victory 
for the peace men, embodied a position not very different; 
from that of the whole party a year later, when it claimed 
to be standing on a war platform. The influence 
of the extremists and the events of the war caused 
the Democratic organization in 1862 to approve with little 
dissent that which many Democrats condemned the year 
before as disloyal and unwise. After the adoption of the 
platform, the ticket, headed by David R. Floyd Jones for 
secretary of state, was quickly nominated, some of the places 
being filled without any contest. 3 The ninth resolution 
proved a millstone. Two of the nominees, Lyman Tre- 
main, 4 who had been selected for attorney-general, an office 
to which he had already been once elected by the Democrats, 
> 
'The Herald (Sept. 8) said editorially that Wood's followers had been 
turned out by the convention, but his platform adopted. 

* Herald, Sept. 8. 

' Herald, Sept. 6. 

4 Letter of Tremain to the Democratic State Committee, printed in 
the Tribune, Sept. 11. 



365] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 165 

and Francis C. Brunck, 1 nominated for state treasurer, de- 
clined because of the platform and the spirit shown by the 
party; and the disloyal parts of the resolutions were prac- 
tically repudiated by the remaining candidates. 2 

Though the Democratic organization had refused to lay 
aside party, many who had formerly adhered to it disap-* 
proved of this action, and the ninth resolution increased the 
number of those who were ready to throw off the old ties. 
The Republicans were generally inclined to a union with 
whoever would join with them in support of the adminis-j 
tration. 3 Thurlow Weed favored such a movement. The 
Albany Evening Journal said in its editorials : " It is hu- 
miliating to find men only thinking of party when the Coun- 
try is in peril ;" 4 " There is nothing which the traitors so 
much desire, just now, as partisan contests at the North;" 5 
" The popular sentiment seems to demand the nomination 
of a ticket composed of uncompromising friends of the 
Union, irrespective of party." 6 A call, issued by some 

1 Letter of Brunck to the Democratic State Committee, printed in 
the Tribune, Sept. 17. 

2 See note 2, page 161. 

3 Resolutions of the Richmond County Republican Convention 
{Tribune, Aug. 21); resolutions of the 2nd assembly district convention 
of Westchester County ( Tribune, Sept. 7) ; letter from a correspondent 
in Essex County saying that the delegates from that county go to the 
state convention instructed to favor the nomination of a state ticket 
composed of men of all parties upon the single basis of sustaining the 
government in its efforts to suppress the rebellion (Albany Evening 
Journal, Sept. 6) ; similar letter from a correspondent in Warren County 
(Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 9); action of the 1st assembly district 
Republican convention of Cayuga County, instructing delegates in favor 
of a " Union" ticket (Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 10). 

4 Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 2.^. 

5 Albany Evening Journal, Aug, 10. 
* Albany Evening Journal, Aug. 30. 



r 66 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [366 

half dozen men of various political antecedents, summoned 
a People's convention to meet at Syracuse on September 
10th, which was the same place, and one day previous to 
the time, already fixed for the Republican State Conven- 
tion. 1 

When the People's convention assembled, its member- 
ship embraced men of all parties, including James Brooks, 
F. A. Tallmadge, William Duer, Thomas G. Alvord, Noah 
Davis, and John B. Haskin. There were Democrats, 
" hard " and " soft ", Constitutional-Unionists, and Re- 
publicans. 2 Apparently the delegations were chosen by 
mass meetings or conventions of men of all parties; and 
these district assemblages were, in some cases at least, 
denominated " Union " conventions or meetings. 3 The 
delegations were said to have contained about equal pro- 
portions of Democrats and Republicans. 4 Some were mem- 
bers of both the People's and the Republican conventions, 5 
and naturally the prospect of an agreement between the 
two influenced the action of both. Nevertheless, the Peo- 
ple's convention represented a genuine movement arising 

'Herald, Sept. 8. 

3 Tribune, Sept. 11: " Every shade of politics participated . . . Prom- 
inent Democrats, from both wings of the party, played a conspicuous 
part in its [the convention's] doings, and leading Bell-Everett men were 
present." "A large number of prominent Democrats are here [i. e., at 
Syracuse] every one of whom repudiates the platform of their party" 
{Herald, Sept. 11). 

3 Notices of such district meetings in the Argus, Sept. 5, 7, 9; in the 
Albany Evening Journal , Sept. 9. The Argus of Sept. 7 acknowledged 
that the call for the Albany meeting was signed by a number of promi- 
nent Republicans and "by some of our Democratic fellow citizens." 

* Herald, Sept. 10. Yet a review of the People's convention in the 
Argus of Sept. 18 claimed that there were probably not twenty-five 
Democrats present in the convention. This article was, however, ap- 
parently a partisan effort to decry the convention. 

'"■Herald, Sept. 11: Argus, Sept. 16. 



367] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 167 

from the patriotic desire to lay aside party during the crisis 
and was no mere Republican side-show. Thomas G. Al- 
vord, ex-speaker of the assembly, for thirty years a Demo- 
crat, and lately a prominent follower of Breckinridge, was 
chosen temporary chairman. In his speech he declared 
that the question before the country must submerge all 
parties. " I am for giving to the government," he said, 
" the greatest possible latitude that should be given by a 
free people in such a crisis." As to the acts of the admin- 
istration which the Democrats had assailed in their ninth 
resolution, Alvord declared that had the President " done 
less than he has done ... he would be more entitled to 
impeachment than he is now for any violation of the con- 
stitution," a sentiment greeted with prolonged applause. 1 
These were the opinions of a real War Democrat. That 
term, both during the rebellion and since, has been used in 
a somewhat confusing way, including several different at- 
titudes, shading into one another. Horatio Seymour and 
men of his type were and are sometimes described as War 
Democrats; but this designation might, perhaps, be more 
properly limited to those Democrats who either became 
merged into the Union party or, while retaining their 
political independence, heartily supported the war meas- 
ures of the administration. The name ought not to be 
applied to those who, while supporting the war to some 
extent, embarrassed the government by a constant unsym- 
pathetic fire of criticism of its methods. 

A number of Bell-Everett men, the rump of the once 
powerful American party, were members of the convention. 
They endeavored to hasten nominations at the first day's 
session. The Republicans opposed this and favored as long 
a recess as possible in order to afford time for consulta- 

1 Herald, Sept. 11. 



X 68 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [368 

tions with the Republican convention. After debate, the 
Constitutional-Unionists were defeated, and the conven- 
tion adjourned for that day. 1 On the next morning, com- 
mittees were appointed, and an adjournment to the afternoon 
was then made to permit the assembling of the Republican 
convention in the meanwhile. When the latter gathered, 
neither Weed nor Greeley was among those present; but 
the anti-Weed men, including Opdyke, Dana, D. D. Field, 
and Campbell, were there in force. The Republicans ap- 
pointed a committee on order of business, which conferred 
with the committee on nominations of the People's con- 
vention. 2 These two committees, after discussion, agreed 
on a ticket, including Daniel S. Dickinson for attorney-gen- 
eral, Horatio Ballard for secretary of state, and Lucius 
Robinson for comptroller. Dickinson had been a life-long 
Democrat, a United States senator from New York, and a 
leader of the " hard shells ". He was the most prominent 
of those New York Democrats who entered into the Union 
party movement. Ballard, a lawyer of Cortland County, 
had been until a month before a member of the regular 
Democratic State Committee. Robinson, a Republican of 
Barnburner Democratic origin, later governor of the State, 
had served in the assembly and had been chairman of the 
committee on ways and means, making for himself a name 
for incorruptibility and knowledge of the State's finances. 
The whole ticket was composed of three Democrats, five Re- 
publicans, and one Bell-Everett man. 3 Only W. B. Wright, 

1 Herald, Sept. 11. 

2 Herald, Sept. 12. A committee on nominations was also appointed; 
yet, it was intended that the committee on order of business should 
confer on nominations with the committee of the People's convention 
(See remarks of the temporary chairman of the Republican convention). 

3 Herald, Sept. 12; the Tribune (Sept. 12) says four Democrats and 
four Republicans, but Dickinson, Ballard, and Tappan were, apparently, 
the only Democrats. 



369] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY ^9 

who was named for judge of the Court of Appeals, could 
be called a Weed man/ though Weed subsequently 
claimed that Ballard was nominated by his influence. 2 

Meanwhile, the Republicans adjourned, and the People's 
convention again took possession of the hall. The com- 
mittee on resolutions reported a platform which was 
adopted. This denied any intention of organizing a new 
party; proclaimed devotion to the constitution and thej 
Union, and a " fixed determination to defend, maintain, 
and perpetuate them at every hazard and at whatever cost " 
and to sustain with all " individual and united power and 
zeal the constitutionally chosen authorities of the govern- 
ment." 3 Then the ticket agreed upon by the committee 
of the two conventions was nominated by acclamation. A 
proposal to organize county committees, which would have 
been a step toward the formation of the machinery of a 
new party, was opposed by the delegates who were Repub- 
licans. The convention finally contented itself with recom- 
mending local mass meetings to ratify the ticket and to 
take such further action as might be found necessary; nor 
was any state committee appointed. 4 

Immediately after the adjournment sine die of the Peo- 
ple's convention, the Republicans for the second time that 
day occupied the hall. The committee on nominations re- 
quested more time. A delegate called for the reading of 
the ticket adopted by the People's convention. A motion 

1 The state treasurer, comptroller, and attorney-general on the Re- 
publican ticket of 1859 were not renominated, because of the scandals 
connected with the State Military Board. For complaints and accusa- 
tions against this board, see Herald, May 16, 19, 23, June 6, Aug. 7; 
Tribune, May 4, 11, 16, June 28. 

2 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 473. 
8 Herald, Sept. 12. 

4 Herald, Sept. 12; Argus, Sept. 12. 



iy NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [370 

to adjourn to the morrow, which if carried might have led 
to a different set of nominations from those of the People's 
convention, was defeated, 93 to 108. The People's con- 
vention ticket was then read and cheered with the exception 
of Frederick A. Tallmadge, a Bell-Everett man nominated 
for canal commissioner. His name was hissed. 1 After 
an exciting and disorderly debate, Benjamin F. Bruce, a 
good Weed Republican, was substituted for Tallmadge; 
this settled, the remaining names as agreed upon by the 
conference committees were speedily nominated by the Re- 
publicans too. 2 

The ticket nominated by the People's convention and 
endorsed, with one minor exception, by the Republicans 
was called the Union ticket. In a large number of counties 
there were held conventions embracing the same elements 
as the People's State Convention, for the purpose of mak- 
ing nominations for local offices and for the legislature. 
These county assemblages were generally called People's 
conventions, 3 although in some instances, they were de- 
nominated Union conventions. 4 In some counties, the Re- 
publican and People's or Union conventions agreed on 
nominees ; in a number, there was only a partial fusion ; and 
in some cases, the local tickets were wholly different. This 
lack of uniformity brings out the broken state of party lines. 
What was later the Union party was yet in its initial stages 
of formation, and in some localities the Republicans 
showed themselves averse to entering upon such a move- 

1 When the commit/tee on credentials of the People's convention had 
reported that a considerable number were delegates to both conven- 
tions, Tallmadge had vainly protested against that condition of affairs 
(Herald, Sept. 12). 

2 Herald, Sept. 12. 

*E. g., in Queens, Washington, Albany, Onondaga, Chautauqua, 
and Monroe Counties. 

*E.g., Broome, Westchester, and New York Counties. 



3 7 l ] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY T71 

ment 1 Even in the strongest Republican counties, as the 
Tribune pointed out, the effect of this course was to reduce 
the majority for the Union state ticket by alienating Demo- 
cratic voters. 2 

The situation in New York City was particularly interest- 
ing. Mozart Hall, having been kicked out of the Demo- 
cratic State Convention, denied in a series of resolutions 
that it was tainted with disloyalty, and affirmed that its 
members were " for maintaining the authority of the gov- 
ernment ' peaceably if we can but forcibly if we must;' " 3 
and it ratified the Union state ticket. 4 Tammany, though 
victorious in the convention, found the platform adopted 
by that body and especially the ninth resolution hard to 
swallow. At this time public sentiment — at any rate so 
far as it was expressed — was in favor of the war and of* 
sustaining the administration. Practically all the important 
metropolitan dailies supported the Union ticket. More- 
over, the platform was felt to be inconsistent with Tam- 
many's position from the beginning of hostilities. Ac- 
cordingly, the Tammany General Committee adopted an 
address declaring that the candidates nominated by the 
Democratic State Convention " must plant themselves upon 
the patriotic platform upon which we stand or they cannot 
receive our support. . . . The three first resolutions of the 
Democratic State Convention embrace all the declarations it 
was called upon to make in regard to national matters. . ." 

1 Extract from the Utica Herald (in the Argus, Oct. 24), containing 
a call to the Republican electors of Oneida County, asking Republicans 
dissatisfied with the action of the People's convention in that county to 
meet in mass convention. The Argus said that there was a similar 
call in the Buffalo Express for a convention in that city. 

2 Tribune, Oct. 10. 

'Resolutions printed in the Herald, Sept. 10. 
4 Herald. Sept. 22. 



lj 2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [372 

. . . ." As for the rest of the resolutions adopted at Syra- 
cuse, they were well enough as an " expression of abstract 
doctrines for a time of peace, . . . but if designed as man- 
acles to shackle and wedges to divide the nation, while 
engaged in a ' war for its life ' they deserve ... a most 
decisive repudiation." 

At the same time the Tammany General Committee 
adopted a series of resolutions which are worthy of atten- 
tion as an embodiment of a far more patriotic and politi- 
cally wiser position than that of the state organization. 
These resolutions declared it to be " the first and most sacred 
duty of every man ... to devote his energies and his 
means, with all his heart and soul, to the earnest and resist- 
less prosecution of the war, until the rebellion is utterly sup- 
pressed ... ;" that the President 

is imperatively required ... to take every step . . . which 
may be necessary to secure the triumph of our arms . . . and 
that his measures in this respect will be passed upon by a 
generous and patriotic people, . . . [who will] judge his ac- 
tions with liberality and fairness, without party spirit, and 
with a just appreciation of the difficulties ... by which he is 
surrounded. 

Then, after approving Lincoln's disavowal of Fremont's 
proclamation of emancipation, the resolutions went on to 
defend the refusal of Tammany to abandon the Democratic 
state organization and to join in a Union party movement, 
saying that if the Democrats should merge in a 

mere temporary party for the war, there is great danger that 
such a result would be regarded at the South as a prelude to a 
war of emancipation ... A democratic organization would, 
under any circumstances, have been maintained in this State, 
and the real point to be considered is, whether it was [sic] 
better for the country that democrats in favor of a vigorous 



373] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 173 

prosecution of the war should remain with their party, and 
secure its organization in aid of the government, or . . . allow 
a chance for the democratic party to be controlled by less 
patriotic influences. 1 

All of the candidates on the state ticket replied to the Tam- 
many General Committee, expressing approval of the reso- 
lutions. 2 That organization accordingly endorsed the nomi- 
nations. 3 

When it came to a division of the county spoils, Tammany 
and Mozart managed to agree on every name except that for 
sheriff. The general dissolution of the old parties, which 
was thought to be going on, 4 caused the adherents of the 
Union ticket in New York City to associate in a reform 
movement for good government. 5 Among the prominent 
men who participated therein were John Jacob Astor, Peter 
Cooper, William Allen Butler, Moses Taylor, William F. 
Havemeyer, and Alexander T. Stewart. 6 A number of 
Union organizations were formed, each advocating a more 
honest and economical municipal management. Four of 
these associations nominated county and judicial tickets of 
their own, thus threatening through divisions to wreck any 
prospect of success. 7 Finally, just before the election, an 
agreement was reached among these various Union organi- 
zations and also the Republicans. 8 The Tammany-Mozart 

1 Herald, Oct. 4. 

1 Letters of the different candidates on the Democratic state ticket 
replying to the Tammany committee, printed in the Herald, Nov. 5. 

s Herald, Oct. 27. 

* Herald, Oct. 12; resolutions of the St. Nicholas Hotel Union meet- 
ing (Tribune, Sept. 19). 

6 Herald, Sept. 20, 22, Oct. 4 ; Tribune, Sept. 19. 

6 Herald, Sept. 20, Oct. 4. 

7 Herald, Oct. 12, 27 ; Tribune, Oct. 17. 

8 Tribune, Oct. 21 ; Herald, Oct. 27. 



I7 4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [374 

coalition, however, was victorious, and the notorious ring — 
then in its early stage — secured a great triumph. Henry 
W. Genet, who at that time was the leading spirit of the 
ring, was elected county clerk; and A. Oakey Hall, later 
mayor at the time of the Tweed expose, was chosen district 
attorney. It is significant of the methods and power of this 
corrupt gang that, being unable wholly to control Tammany 
on this occasion and to prevent the nomination of Nelson J. 
Waterbury for district attorney, the ring was able to bring 
about the naming of Oakey Hall for that office by the Re- 
publicans and his endorsement by Mozart. Though the 
third of the ring candidates, William M. Tweed, was de- 
feated for the office of sheriff, the good government move- 
ment associated with the Union campaign in New York 
City was a failure. 

The state canvass was, on the whole, very quiet. 1 The 
attention of the people was absorbed in the war, this was 
not a gubernatorial election, and the legislature to be chosen 
would select no United States senator. So the politicians 
were busied rather with the spoils of local offices. The 
declinations of Tremain and Brunck, the practical repudia- 
tion of the ninth resolution by all of the Democratic state 
candidates, its positive rejection by Tammany, and the en- 
dorsement of the Union state ticket by Mozart all pointed to 

1 " . . . the prospects are that it will prove the tamest [election] that 
has been known for many years. . . . There is, in fact, outside of this 
city and county, no contest" (Herald, Nov. 2). "We doubt if there 
has been a general State election for the last ten years where there has 
been so little noise attending the preparations. Bonfires, processions 
and target excursions have been almost unknown, and public meetings 
few and far between" (Herald, Nov. 4). The Rochester correspon- 
dent of the Herald (Oct. 24) wrote: "While the electors of this city 
and many other localities are intently absorbed in the question of 
county candidates, very little attention seems to be paid to the State 
nominations." 



375] THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY ^5 

the probability of the success of the Union ticket. 1 The 
candidates for state offices on both tickets claimed to stand 
on a platform favoring the vigorous prosecution of the 
war ; in the City of New York there was substantial agree- 
ment on national questions by all parties and organizations ; 
matters of state policy played absolutely no part in the cam- 
paign; and thus the Democrats had no issue on which to 
make an aggressive fight. They were on the defensive, and 
the ninth resolution was their vulnerable point. A note- 
worthy feature of the contest was the able and stirring 
speeches of Daniel S. Dickinson, strongly in support of the 
national administration. The result of the election was the 
success of the Union state ticket — except the nominee for 
canal commissioner 2 — by a hitherto unprecedented ma- 
jority in this State of 107,000; and those elected on Repub- 
lican and on Union or People's tickets together would con- 
trol both branches of the legislature. At the same time, 
there was a tremendous falling-off in the Democratic vote 
as compared with that of i860. 3 

Of more than local interest was the New York City 
charter election in December, 1861, when a successor to 
Fernando Wood was chosen. The Taxpayers Union and 
the Rentpayers Association were again in the field to bring 
about a reform in the city government. 4 This element com- 
bined with the Republicans in the support of George Op- 

1 The Argus (Nov. 7) in an editorial on the election said that "if 
the Democracy had not been chilled in the outset by the declination of 
one of its candidates, and betrayed by shameful compromises and 
combinations in the Metropolis," the result would have been different. 

2 Through the failure of the People's and the Republican conventions 
to agree on the nominee for this office, Wright, a Democrat, was elected. 

3 Albany Evening Journal Almanac for 1862. 

4 Herald, Nov. 17. Messrs. Stokes, Minturn, and Astor were suc- 
cessively nominated and all in turn declined. 



lyS NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [376 

dyke. The latter had risen from a journeyman tailor in 
New Orleans 1 to be one of New York's wealthy mer- 
chants. He had served in the legislature, where he had 
shown a knowledge of commerce and finance, and in 1859 
had been the Republican candidate for mayor. He was a 
radical and a leader of the anti-Weed faction of his 
party. Tammany nominated C. Godfrey Gunther, a 
fur merchant. Wood was backed for reelection by his 
own organization, Mozart Hall. 

Significantly, the attitude of the candidates toward the 
war was the chief issue of the campaign. Wood declared 
that the contest was one of conservative nationalism against 
abolitionism; and claiming that he was the representative 
of the former, he devoted his speeches largely to denuncia- 
tion of the latter. 2 At a mass meeting of Germans, he was 
reported to have said : 

They [the abolitionists] will prosecute it [the war] so long as 
there is a drop of Southern blood to be shed, provided they are 
removed from the scene of danger. They will get Irish and 
Germans to fill their regiments to " defend the country " under 
the idea that they themselves will remain at home, and divide 
the plunder . . . They have conquered all the strongholds of 
the North, and they are now battling against the citadel of the 
Empire City . . . 3 

This was a sample of Wood's demagogism. His former 
connections with the Southern fire-eaters, his message sug- 
gesting the establishment of a free city at New York, and 
his action in the Georgia rifle seizure caused him to be sus- 
pected, with some justice, of sympathizing with the rebels; 

1 Herald, Nov. 26. 

2 E. g. speeches of Nov. 27, 29. 
* Tribune, Nov. 28. 



j 77 J THE GENESIS OF THE UNION PARTY 177 

and these incidents furnished campaign material for both 
Republicans and Tammany speakers, who accused him of 
disloyalty. Wood, it is true, had changed his tone when 
Sumter fell. But in the early months of the war, a loyal 
attitude was a necessity for any politician in New York City 
who desired to retain his power. On the other hand, Op- 
dyke, because of his well-known views on slavery, was as- 
sailed by Tammany and Mozart as an abolitionist. The 
Herald said : " The two principal features of the canvass 
were the anti-Wood cry and anti-abolition." 1 

In general, the supporters of Opdyke and of Gunther at- 
tacked the candidates of each other but sparingly, and 
turned their fire rather against the crafty Mozart chief. 
Whether to vote for Opdyke or for Gunther, was with 
many simply a question of which had the better chance of 
defeating Wood. Neither of the Democratic factions could 
afford to be beaten by the other. It was the closest triangu- 
lar contest thus far fought in the City ; 2 the vote was very 
heavy, from fifteen to twenty thousand above that cast in 
the state election a month previous, and after making allow- 
ance for the number absent in the army, rivaling the presi- 
dential vote of i860. Because of the overwhelming senti- 
ment in favor of supporting the administration, there had 
been apathy, especially in the Democratic ranks, during the 
state canvass ; while this local contest aroused more interest. 
Opdyke led with 25,380 votes to 24,767 for Gunther and 
24,167 for Wood. 3 This was at the best only a partial 
check to the corrupt elements. Both branches of the muni- 

1 Herald, Dec. 8. " He [Opdyke] lost a good many Republican votes 
— some because he was deemed an abolitionist — some because he was 
not an abolitionist ..." (Tribune, Dec. 4). 

2 Tribune, Dec. 4. 

3 Tribune Almanac for 1862. 



I7 8 W£^ YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [378 

cipal law-making body were politically opposed to the new 
mayor, and it was there that the ring had already gained a 
firm hold. Though Opdyke steadily opposed dishonesty 
and extravagance, New York City had to wait until condi- 
tions became still worse before relief came at the beginning 
of the next decade. 



CHAPTER VI 

The Legislature of 1862 

A noteworthy feature of New York politics during 1862 
was the contrast between the comparative calm which pre- 
vailed during the first half of the year, including the months 
when the Legislature was in session, and the fierce partisan 
spirit which was evident after August. In other years, the 
Legislature was usually a party battle ground. 1 But the 
session of 1862 was remarkable for a paucity of party mani- 
festations. 2 Then, too, the intestine dissensions in which 
the Democracy of New York City had long been involved 
because of the rivalries of Tammany and Mozart, died down 
after the charter election of 1861. Even the war of edi- 
torials between Greeley and Weed entered upon a period of 

1 A. Lawrence Lowell in a paper entitled " The Influence of Party 
upon Legislation" (American Historical Association Report, 1901, 
i> P- 338) says : " In New York alone among the States considered is 
the amount of party voting considerable. Here the proportion of 
party votes is about 25 or 30 per cent in the senate and 45 or 50 per 
cent in the assembly; and there is no great difference in this respect 
between the sessions of 1894 and 1899. . . . Party politics in New 
York have always run high, and the people have always been divided 
evenly enough to keep party strife keen. At the same time great size 
has made more possible than elsewhere a real party division upon State 
issues instead of upon national ones alone; ..." 

2 Senator Bell, on taking the chair in the absence of the Lieutenant- 
Governor, said : " History does not record, or my memory fails to re- 
call, a period so free from party feeling and party strife." This, 
however, was perhaps an exaggeration. Certainly, the Argus from 
time to time stirred up the partisan waters. 

379] 1/9 



i8o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [380 

truce. This cessation in great part of the old spirit was a 
natural result of the gigantic contest in which the best 
energy of the country was absorbed and of the overwhelm- 
ing victory of the Union ticket in 1861. 

The Legislature of 1862 was ranked high for the ability 
and honesty of its members. The Assembly contained a dis- 
tinguished group of administration supporters, which em- 
braced Messrs. Stetson and Pringle who had served in Con- 
gress, Messrs. Hulburd, Ogden, and Alvord who had been 
members of previous legislatures, and Henry J. Raymond 
who had been speaker of the assembly and later, as lieuten- 
ant-governor, had presided over the upper house. In the 
state Senate of 1862, ten of the members had been elected 
as straight Republicans, twelve as Union Republicans, three 
as Union Democrats, and seven as Democrats. Thus, fifteen 
were chosen on Union tickets; twenty-two had been Re- 
publicans, and ten had been Democrats. In the Assembly, 
there were twenty-seven straight Republicans, thirty-eight 
Union Republicans, twenty-nine Union Democrats, and 
thirty-three straight Democrats. Of one hundred and 
twenty-seven members (there being one vacancy), sixty- 
seven were elected on Union tickets ; sixty-five were of Re- 
publican antecedents, and sixty-two Democratic. 1 Thus, the 
majority in both houses was composed of men whose affili- 
ations had been with the Republicans. Yet that party was 
then young and its component elements were still traceable. 
Hence there were some interesting combinations possible. 
Would the straight Republicans continue to act with all the 
Union members; or would the Republicans, straight and 
Union, combine and repel the Union Democrats? The Re- 
publicans at the preceding election had advocated drop- 
ping party questions and standing upon the single issue 

1 Herald, Jan. 6. 



3 8i] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 181 

of supporting the administration. The Union Democrats 
had been chosen on the same platform. 1 Would the move- 
ment for a Union party continue, or would the old lines of 
division reappear? 

The question came to a head with the calling of a caucus 
to select a candidate for speaker. The prominent names 
mentioned for the place were Raymond of New York, 
Calvin T. Hulburd of St. Lawrence, and Thomas G. Alvord 
of Onondaga. The first was a Weed Republican, the sec- 
ond a Republican of Barnburner Democratic origin, and the 
last a Union Democrat. Personality and considerations of 
future policy, however, quite broke down factional lines. 2 
It is curious to note that Raymond, in spite of Seward's and 
Weed's attitude on radical measures and his connection with 
them, attracted members favoring emancipation. But in 
general, Raymond's strength came from the followers of 
Weed. 3 The anti-Raymond men issued a caucus call invit- 
ing all members of the Assembly who favored sustaining 
the government in a vigorous prosecution of the war to put 
down the rebellion and maintain the Union, and who were 
opposed to partial and unjust legislation and to corruption 
in high places. 4 This would not only permit all Union mem- 
bers, Republicans or Democrats, to take part; it was broad 
enough to let in the straight Democrats who might have joined 
in bringing about the nomination of a man like Alvord. 
That such an occurrence was a possibility, was shown not 
only by the facts that no Democratic caucus had yet been 
called and that party feeling was relatively low, but also by 

1 Herald, Jan. 6. * Tribune, Jan. 6. 

3 Herald, Jan. 5. 

4 Printed in the Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 4. The Journal ques- 
tioned the authority of this call because the document was anonymous 
and because so few members had as yet arrived. 



iS 2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [382 

the resolution of Mr. Ogden referred to below. Raymond's 
followers in reply issued a call worded the same as the 
previous one except that only those who supported the 
Union ticket of 1861 were invited. Both documents named 
the assembly chamber and the 6th of January as the place 
and time, but the Raymond men were to meet two hours 
before their opponents. 1 

Thereupon, the friends of Alvord and Hulburd gath- 
ered in a preliminary meeting at four o'clock, three hours be- 
fore the time set for their caucus and one hour before that of 
Raymond's adherents was to meet. There were thus two 
caucuses, one at four and the other at five o'clock. The 
Raymond call had but thirty-one names, far less than 
was necessary for an election; nor were the Alvord-Hul- 
burd men, even if united upon one of their number, sufficient 
to elect. Though Raymond's chances seemed at the start 
the best, 2 there was a fair prospect that neither caucus would 
represent a majority of the House, unless some straight 
Democrats were induced to answer one of the calls, 3 and 
that the matter would have to be settled by a contest in the 
Assembly itself. 4 But the anti-Raymond men accomplished 
nothing, and at the hour set for the Raymond caucus ad- 
journed. They did not, however, withdraw, perhaps think- 
ing to beat Raymond among his own friends. 5 Thus the 
two caucuses blended into one composed of Republicans, 
Union Republicans and Union Democrats. 6 The question 

1 The Raymond call is printed in the Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 6. 

2 Herald, Jan. 6 ; Tribune, Jan. 6. 

3 Tribune, Jan. 6. 

* Herald, Jan. 6; Argus, Jan. 8. 

5 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 7 ; Herald, Jan. 7, 8. 

6 Tribune, Jan. 7; Herald, Jan. 7. 



383] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 ^3 

as to who might vote was at once brought up. Mr. Ogden, 
a Union Democrat, offered a resolution that " all members 
elected to the legislature who favor sustaining the govern- 
ment in a vigorous prosecution of the war to put down the 
rebellion and save the Union, and who are opposed to un- 
just, partial legislation and corruption in high or low 
places, be invited to take seats." Ogden and Stetson, an- 
other Union Democrat, spoke for the resolution; Raymond 
and Pierce against it, arguing that support of the Union 
state ticket as well as of the national administration be made 
the test. After a lengthy debate, the resolution was lost, 
16 to 61. * 

The balloting for speaker then followed with this result : 
Raymond (Republican) 29, Hulburd (Republican) 17, 
Rice (Republican) 12, Alvord (Union Democrat) 8, Pierce 
(Union Republican) 7, Ogden (Union Democrat) 5, scat- 
tering or blank 4. Ogden, Alvord, and Rice then withdrew 
their names. On the second ballot, Raymond had 47 votes 
to 37 for Hulburd. Raymond's nomination was then made 
unanimous. 2 The Union Democrats were consoled with the 
clerkship. 3 On the next day the straight Democrats, who 
seemed to have been waiting for an advantageous offer, went 
through the formality of making caucus nominations. 4 
When the Assembly met on January 7th to organize, Ray- 
mond was chosen speaker, receiving 88 votes to 36 for 
Horatio Seymour of Erie (not the former governor). All 
the members of Republican antecedents, whether elected on 
straight or Union tickets, and nearly all of the Union Demo- 

1 Herald, Jan. 7 ; Tribune, Jan. 7. 

2 Herald, Jan. 7; Tribune, Jan. 7. 
s Herald, Jan. 8. 

* Tribune, Jan. 7 ; Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 7. 



j8 4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [384 

crats voted for Raymond. 1 In the Senate, all of the Union 
members acted with the Republicans in caucus. 2 Thus, the 
session began with harmony between the Republicans and 
the Union men. 

Even in this exceptionally peaceful session, the irrepres- 
sible question caused some party debates. Soon after the 
organization of the House, a Democratic caucus decided to 
support the President and to uphold his conservative policy 
against abolitionist generals. A committee of five to draft 
resolutions was appointed, but nothing came of this. 3 In 
the Assembly a resolution, favoring the abolition of slavery 
in the District of Columbia brought on a partisan skirmish. 4 
The Democrats opposed the resolution on the ground that 
the Legislature had little enough time to attend to its own 
business without meddling with that of Congress. One 
Union Democrat, desiring to put the abolitionists on record, 
moved an amendment in favor of the abolition of slavery 
south 5 of Mason and Dixon's line. A Democrat moved 
the previous question. The Republicans were able to de- 
feat this, and on motion of one of them, the resolution was 
referred to the committee on federal relations, not to be 
heard of again. 6 In the Senate, the straight Democratic 
minority was small; but it failed to show even its full 
strength or to attract any of the Union Democrats in op- 
posing a resolution approving the President's message 

1 Assembly Journal 1862, p. 6. 

2 Herald, Jan. 7. 

s Herald, Jan. 15. 

* Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 480. 

5 The Assembly Journal, p. 481, says " north " ; but this is evidently 
a misprint. This supposition is confirmed by the reports in the Herald 
and Tribune (Mar. 18). 

6 Herald, Mar. 18; Argus, Mar. 19; Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 481. 



385] THB LEGISLATURE OF 1862 185 

recommending compensated emancipation. 1 Senator Pruyn, 
a Democrat, declared the message ill-timed and injudicious, 
and wished to have the resolution sent to a special com- 
mittee. But the greatest number of votes the Democrats 
could muster against the resolution was three; and on the 
final passage, it was adopted by a vote of twenty-six to one 
— all the Union Democrats and five straight Democrats 
voting aye. 2 

A joint resolution instructing the United States senators 
from New York to vote for the expulsion of Mr. Bright of 
Indiana 3 developed something like a party alignment. Sen- 
ator Harris, to the disgust of some New York Republicans, 
had taken a stand against expulsion. Hence the resolu- 
tions in the Legislature. The Republicans, however, were 
not unanimous on this question. Some joined with the 
Democrats in maintaining that the Bright affair was a 
purely judicial matter, about which the members of the 
Legislature knew nothing but rumors. 4 Substitute resolu- 
tions merely expressing the opinion that Bright was a 
traitor and ought to be expelled were adopted in the Senate 
by a party vote. 5 Before the Assembly took action, Bright 
on the 5th of February was expelled. One of New York's 
senators, Preston King, voted for expulsion ; while the other, 
Ira Harris, voted against it. Some days later, the resolu- 
tions were called up in the Assembly and amended to fit the 
circumstances. The pleasure of the New York Legislature 
at Bright's expulsion was expressed, and Senator King was 

1 For this, see Rhodes, History of the United States, iii, pp. 631-3 ; 
Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vi, pp. 68, 69. 
1 Tribune, April 4; Argus, April 4; Senate Journal, 1862, p. 433. 

3 For this affair, see the Annual Cyclopedia for 1862, pp. 331-2. 

4 Herald, Jan. 31 ; Argus, Feb. 1. 

5 Senate Journal, 1862, p. 121. 



t86 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [386 

thanked. In the debate which followed, the Democrats were 
aided by some of the Republicans, who thought the resolu- 
tions useless and an implied censure on Senator Harris. 
Indeed so many of the majority acted on this occasion with 
the Democrats that only the Speaker's casting vote pre- 
vented the matter from being laid on the table, and finally 
the House adjourned without taking any action on the sub- 
ject. 1 

We may conclude that the session of 1862 was notable 
for a lack of partisan debates and divisions. Hence, the 
Tribune correspondent wrote: "It is a difficult question to 
classify members politically now, as some seem to have no 
politics at all and others ' none to speak of.' " 2 The Her- 
ald correspondent wrote at the close of the session : 

The Legislature proceeded quite harmoniously in its business 
throughout the session. There has been no great question 
upon which the leaders on each side arrayed themselves and 
sounded the party call for their followers. Everything that 
has approximated [to] a party movement has been simply a 
struggle between the two great wings of the Republican party. 3 

It is to be noted that the Democrats made no opposition to 
what might be called war measures ; 4 military bills, including 

1 Assembly Journal, 1862, pp. 279, 280; Herald, Feb. 16; Argus, Feb. 
19. In the Assembly, an amendment to the state constitution pro- 
hibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors was defeated by a vote of 38 
to 73. While nearly all the Democrats voted against the amendment, 
the division was not a party one; for nearly all the New York City 
and Brooklyn Republicans voted nay. It was rather a case of city 
against country (Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 516). 

2 Tribune, Jan. 16. 

8 Herald, April 2J; similar editorial in the Albany Evening Journal, 
April 23, which said, "... party spirit was seldom exhibited, and 
mere party discussions were commendably rare." 

* " . . . whatever measures were deemed necessary to strengthen the 



387] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 187 

one for the reorganization of the militia, went through 
smoothly; 1 and there was evinced a disposition on the part 
of the opposition freely to give New York's share to the 
financial support of the war. 2 

This general calm was, however, somewhat -disturbed by 
the personal rivalries which developed within the majority 
of the Assembly. Their first appearance we have seen in 
the contest for the speakership. They came up again dur- 
ing an exciting debate on the question of taxation, and re- 
sulted in a verbal duel between Raymond on the one hand 
and Hulburd, Pierce, and Alvord on the other. Congress 
\vas still considering the subject, and it was though: by 
some that the voice of New York in favor of taxation would 
have a decided influence upon the lawmakers at Washington. 
So the Assembly committee on ways and means reported 
resolutions favoring the apportionment among the states of 
a direct tax sufficient for and pledged to the payment of the 
interest on the entire debt of the national government; 
further, they urged that ten million dollars of the amount 
to be derived from the income tax be set aside and pledged 
as a sinking fund to the payment of the principal of the debt ; 
the resolutions also condemned the unrestricted emission of 
paper money " vainly bolstered up by making it a legal ten- 
der between debtor and creditor, and without proper and 

hands of the State or of the General Government in the present crisis 
were cordially concurred in. Intense loyalty predominated; and not a 
whisper has been heard through the entire session, of sympathy with 
treason or traitors" (Albany Evening Journal, April 23). 

1 Herald, April 27; Assembly Journal, 1862, pp. 528, 733, 1074; Senate 
Journal, 1862, pp. 623, 640. 

* Herald, April 28; Argus, Jan. 27. A concurrent resolution in favor 
of the State assuming the collection of its quota of the national land tax 
of twenty million dollars was adopted unanimously and with no de- 
bate (Assembly Journal, 1862, pp. 79, 80; Senate Journal, 1862, p. 59). 



t88 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [388 

adequate provision for the redemption of the same." 1 The 
ideas set forth in these resolutions were in accord with 
the financial maxims of those Republicans who had once 
been Barnburner Democrats. Messrs. Stetson, Pierce, 
and Hulburd were conspicuous representatives of this 
class in the Assembly. Mr. Hulburd, the chairman of 
the ways and means committee, delivered an able speech 
in support of the policy advocated by the resolutions. 
Raymond, in a two-hour speech, supported an issue of 
legal tender treasury notes, arguing that the plan of pay- 
as-you-go was impracticable for the federal government 
in its then existing circumstances; and he charged those 
who opposed this policy with blocking the administration 
and with tending to disloyalty. In reply, Hulburd, Pierce, 
and Alvord took issue with Raymond and assailed him se- 
verely. 2 Raymond's substitute resolutions finally received but 
43 votes to 69 against them. 3 The resolutions of the com- 
mittee on ways and means were then passed by a vote of 79 
to 28.* They failed, however, to get through the Senate. 6 
During the debate the straight Democrats merely looked 
on, giving room for any possible schism to develop in the 
majority. 8 

1 Printed in the Argus, Jan. 25. 

2 Herald, Jan. 30 ; Argus, Jan. 30. 

3 Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 173. 

Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 175. 

Referred to the finance committee, Senate Journal, 1862, p. 119; no 
further reference. 

6 " It was pleasant to see every member of the Assembly who had 
ever belonged to the Democratic party (with hardly an exception — 
not more than one or two we believe) come up boldly to the support 
of the resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means. . . . We say 
it was a pleasant sight, the reunion of legislators upon an old and 
honored platform of principle ... in favor of a great principle of 
government, long ago baptized and matured by the old Democratic 
party" (Argus, Feb. 3). According to the Herald (Feb. 1), forty- 



389] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 189 

The contest for personal supremacy broke out again when 
the bill for harbor defenses was being considered. Such a 
measure was reported from the committee on the militia, of 
which Mr. Pierce was chairman; and Hulburd made the first 
speech in favor of it. Alvord argued against its constitu- 
tionality, and prepared a substitute providing for harbor 
defense, but under the national government's direction. 
This was acceded to by Hulburd and Pierce. Raymond 
then made a speech against the bill, and succeeded in tem- 
porarily burying it. Two weeks later, he offered a substi- 
tute of his own. This renewed the personal battle between 
Raymond and the other leaders of the majority. 1 The 
Tribune correspondent wrote that there was " a contest for 
supremacy in the Assembly, which is the real issue dis- 
guised by the several defence projects;" and that the ques- 
tion " has been a hobby on which several parties have striven 
to ride into position here and elsewhere." The Herald cor- 
respondent pronounced it " a contest as to whose bill should 
pass — a personal affair altogether." Raymond's bill finally 
passed the Assembly, 2 but died in the Senate — not however 
through Democratic opposition, but through jealousy among 
the majority over the patronage involved. 3 

eight of those who up to this point had acted with the majority, voted 
against Raymond's substitute; twenty of the forty-eight were classed 
as one time Barnburners and an equal number as former Hunkers. 

1 Assembly Journal, 1862, pp. 214 506; Herald, Mar. 22; Tribune, Mar. 
22, 26; Argus, Mar. 1, 4 6, 7, 21, 28. (Raymond's substitute provided 
for a commission authorized to purchase cannon, etc., and to take 
such other measures as might be deemed necessary to aid the general 
government in protecting the harbor and City of New York, and ap- 
propriated one million dollars therefor. 

2 Assembly Journal, 1862, p. 651. 

8 Motion to order the bill to a third reading defeated, Senate Journal, 
1862, p. 686. Raymond's bill made the commission consist of the Gov- 
ernor, Major Delafield, and Mr. Craven; but when, in the Senate, it 



igo NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [390 

There was trouble brewing within the Republican ranks 
in another direction also, but tending toward the same end 
— preparing the way for future struggles between the 
Greeley and the Weed-Seward wings. Mayor Opdyke of 
New York City, who belonged to the former faction, wanted 
certain bills passed. In brief, he desired more power. In 
order to hit Fernando Wood, the mayor of the metropolis 
had been reduced almost to a figurehead. But many 
thought that there was no longer any reason for this, now 
that Wood was out of office. Despite the fact that Ray- 
mond had been supported by Opdyke in the speakership con- 
test, the former, it was said, had arranged the committee on 
cities so that all the Republicans on it belonged to the Weed 
wing. Opdyke went up to Albany to oppose the metro- 
politan health bill. Thereupon, the Times, Raymond's 
paper, came out with the remark, " The public will hear 
with amazement that Mr. Opdyke has been at Albany op- 
posing this bill." The Tribune took up the cudgels in Op- 
dyke's behalf. 1 The Times then turned its guns upon the 
Tribune. " The Tribune/' it said, " betrays its own motive. 
... Its determination is to defeat this bill unless it can 
secure for the Mayor and his immediate friends, the political 
power which it attributes to the bill. We regard this . . . 
as sacrificing every consideration of the public good to the 

was proposed to make the Governor, the Lieutenant-Governor, and the 
Comptroller (the latter two being strongly anti-Weed men) con- 
stitute the commission, the original friends of the bill abandoned it, 
and it was lost (Argus, April 24; Herald, April 27). 

1 Tribune, April 15. The Argus, whether to stir up trouble or not, 
practically confirmed the Tribune's charge that the original bill was so 
drawn as to fill the city offices as far as possible with men animated by 
hostility to the Mayor and his friends, and said that Opdyke was 
therefore justified in opposing the measure (Argus, April 15). 



39 1 ] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 I9I 

base malignity of a faction." 1 In the end, Opdyke, the 
Tribune, and their adherents succeeded in partially accom- 
plishing their purpose, for the Senate so changed the con- 
trol of the patronage involved in the bill, that the original 
supporters of the measure dropped it. 2 But on the other 
hand, no amendment to the charter of New York City was 
passed and Opdyke obtained no increase of power. 3 

Meanwhile, the Democrats watched the development of 
these rivalries and waited for the threatened split between 
the Republicans and those elected on Union tickets, par- 
ticularly the Union Democrats. The Regency organ, the 
Albany Argus, emphasized the differences among the 
members of the majority, and dwelt upon the dissatis- 
faction of the Weed men and the prospect of a rupture 
between the latter and those Republicans who favored 
the Union movement. 4 The New York World had a 
similar article. 5 The hopes of the Democrats, however, 
were not realized. We have seen that, in general, those 
elected to the Legislature on Union tickets acted quite stead- 
ily with the Republicans. 

Yet, during the winter, traces of a determination to run 
a straight ticket and to " go it alone " were evident among 
the members of the Seward-Weed faction. Weed, who had 
favored the Union movement, was in Europe. In his ab- 
sence, George Dawson, for the time the principal editor of 

1 New York Times, April 16. 

2 Argus, April 24. The bill passed the Assembly (Journal, p. 765). 
In the Senate, the last heard of the measure was a committee report 
in favor of the passage of the Assembly bill with amendments (Senate 
Journal, 1862, p. 593). 

3 Herald, April 24. 

4 Argus, Feb. 21, 24, 28, Mar. 6, 8, 10, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28. 

5 World, Mar. 31. The World became in 1862 a Democratic paper. 



Ig2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [392 

the Albany Evening Journal, came out in February in favor 
of the preservation of the Republican organization and with 
an implied aversion to a renewal of the fusion of 1861. 1 
The Buffalo Express, 2 the Oswego Times, 3 the Syracuse 

1 "... no true Republican will censure the true men of Onondaga 
or of any other county, because they present straight tickets. ... If, 
by the overwhelming expression of public sentiment secured by that 
union [*. e. the fusion of '61], limping patriots have been brought 
into line, all that was desired was accomplished, and no detriment will 
accrue to the country if, hereafter, parties assume their original 
position." — Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 19. " Now, as last fall, the 
Democracy want to come in under the Union dodge in strong Republi- 
can towns, while they keep up their own organization where they 
have numerical strength. The best way is to preserve the Republican 
organization intact by nominating Republican tickets wherever there 
are Republicans enough to hold a caucus " — Albany Evening Journal, 
Feb. 20. In April, however, this paper, while insisting that the Re- 
publican organization should be preserved, was willing to act during 
the war with those who thought alike on the latter subject. — Albany 
Evening Journal, April 9. 

2 " In the so-called Union which characterized the last State election, 
the Republican party was made to suffer severely from disorganiza- 
tion and consequent impaired strength. The ' Union ' as it was 
called, was not as potent as the Republican organization would have 
been, if left to assert its power distinctly in the contest . . . the ef- 
fect of that so-called Union was nevertheless a local disaster, in a 
majority of instances where it was depended upon . . . the partner- 
ship worked very well for the Democratic side. They furnished the 
candidates, while the Republicans furnished the votes. . . . The im- 
mediate effect was disaster, and the more remote consequence, a dis- 
organization and paralysis, from which the Republican party must 
recover soon, or never ... it is the imperative duty of those who 
desire to sustain a Republican administration of the government to 
rally under the banner of that party which took power in the govern- 
ment from Democratic 'hands, . . . Those who are not for the Republican 
organization are against it." — Buffalo Express, quoted in the Albany 
Argus, Mar. 17. 

3 " We beg leave to say that if any fusion is got up on the model of 
last Fall (which lost us a Canal Commissioner and filled the Assembly 
with an uncertain and unreliable element), those who concoct it must 
count Oswego out of the bargain. We have had quite enough of 



393] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 193 

Journal, 1 the Livingston Republican, 2 and the Rochester 
Express 3 bitterly denounced fusion, and insisted on main- 
taining the Republican party organization and waging the 
forthcoming battle under its banner. The Republican State 
Committee was in the control of the Seward-Weed men. 4 
Toward the end of March, the executive committee of that 
body, at whose head was a stanch Weed adherent, Simeon 
Draper, adopted resolutions 5 which included the following : 
" That the Republican party recognize in the cooperation 
of the pure and patriotic men who have united with it in 
sharing the burdens and defending the principles of the 
administration of the national government, a disinterested 
love of country outweighing the trammels of party organi- 
zation ... ;" and that the executive committee " earnestly 
request early action for the organization of the republican 
party for the protection of its principles, the efficiency of 
its labor, and its future success in maintaining the dearest 
principles that belong to an American citizen. ..." The 
first quoted resolution, standing alone, might have been 
interpreted as an invitation to repeat the experiment of the 
previous year ; but the other resolution destroyed this effect, 
and taken in connection with the sentiments published in a 
portion of the Republican press, certainly gave color to the 

fusion. . . . We have done with this business of hiring men to be 
loyal with gifts of office. — Stand by the Republican banner !" — Oswego 
Times, quoted in the Albany Argus, Mar. 28. Another similar extract 
from the same paper is in the Albany Argus, Feb. 24 
1 Quoted in the Albany Argus, Mar. 8, 28. 

* Quoted in the Argus, Mar. 10. 

* Quoted in the Argus, Feb. 28, Mar. 8. 

4 Argus, April II, confirmed by Thurlow Weed's bitter objections to 
the committee chosen in 1862 (see infra). 
6 Printed in the Albany Evening Journal, Mar. 22. 



I94 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [394 

interpretation of the resolutions given by the Democrats * 
— that they pointed to the revival of the Republican organi- 
zation and to a repudiation of the People's or Union move- 
ment. 

There were others, however, both in and out of the Legis- 
lature, who wished to continue the union of all supporters 
of the administration. The maintenance of such an ar- 
rangement during the war, upon the same broad basis as 
that of 1861, was unanimously endorsed at a consultation 
held by a number of legislators about the end of March 
or the beginning of April. Daniel S. Dickinson was re- 
quested to draw up an address to be signed by the law- 
makers. Such a document, containing the ideas set forth 
by the People's Convention of 1861, inviting the coopera- 
tion of " all Union men, irrespective of former or pres- 
ent political designation or shades of opinion," and call- 
ing a caucus on April 10th, was written by Dickinson, and 
circulated among some of the legislators. 2 The organiza- 
tion Republicans thereupon took steps to control any action 
that might be taken, by calling a caucus on April 3d, invit- 
ing only those who had supported the Union ticket of 1861. 

When this caucus met, the Union Democrats showed dis- 
trust by not answering the roll ; and Messrs. Alvord, Stet- 

1 Argus, Mar. 24; New York World, Mz.r. 31. Daniel S. Dickinson 
put the same interpretation upon the resolutions — that they recom- 
mended " strict Republican organization, action, etc." (Letter of Dick- 
inson to the Albany Evening Journal, printed in the issue of May 6). 

2 Letter of Dickinson to the editors of the Albany Evening Journal, 
printed in the issue of May 6. Dickinson's address is printed in the 
same. Letter signed "A Republican member of the Assembly," in 
the Albany Evening Journal, April 28. The Journal editorially vouched 
for the account given in this letter as " written truthfully and im- 
partially " and as presenting " all the leading facts precisely as they 
occurred." Also, Herald, April 4. 



395] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 195 

son, Ogden and others expressed suspicions as to the objects 
of the gathering. They did not wish to be committed on 
political issues of the past. Finally, a committee, satisfac- 
tory to the Union Democrats, was appointed to draft reso- 
lutions and an address. At the next meeting of the caucus 
on the 10th, 1 the resolutions and address were discussed and 
recommitted. Raymond then proposed that a state conven- 
tion should be called by the members of the Legislature who 
were acting together, and that provision should be made at 
the same time for the cooperation of other organizations 
that could rightfully be consulted in such a movement. In 
debate, Raymond explained that this proposal meant con- 
sultation with the Republican State Committee only. Their 
principles, he said, were the same as those of the suggested 
resolutions and address, and their aid was essential to suc- 
cess. With the Democratic State Committee, he had no de- 
sire to confer. Alvord, on the other hand, wished to act 
independently of the Republican State Committee. During 
the following week, drafts of the address by Raymond and 
by Senator Low as well as amendments by Alvord were 
worked over by a sub-committee consisting of Raymond and 
Low. At Raymond's suggestion, a recommendation for 
merely a convention was made without designating a time 
or place, this being left to a committee which was to consult 
with and unite with the Republican State Committee in call- 
ing the convention. This plan avoided the embarrassment 
which might have arisen had a definite date and locality 
been set, in which case the Republicans would have had the 
choice of following the lead of the convention thus called 
or of acting alone. 

1 As the Union Democrats participated in the caucus of April 3d, 
the caucus proposed in the Dickinson call was not held. The caucus 
which did occur on the 10th arose from that of the 3d. 



I9 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [396 

At the caucus of April 18th, the address and resolutions 
met with the approval of all. The only debate which arose 
concerned the call to be issued — whether it should invite co- 
operation with any other political organization or with the 
Republicans alone. Alvord maintained the former, Senator 
Cook and others the latter. It was said that the Repub- 
lican organization should not be ignored even by implica- 
tion. Some of the straight Republicans wanted the proposed 
committee instructed to confer with the Republican State 
Committee. To express this openly, however, it was 
claimed, would weaken the movement and give it a partisan 
appearance. Finally, the matter was compromised by in- 
structing the new committee to consult with " the committee 
of any organization whose cooperation we hope to obtain," 
thus avoiding the use of the word " Republican " and at the 
same time preventing the calling of an anti-Republican 
Union convention. The caucus then unanimously adopted 
the address and the resolutions. The new state committee 
appointed on this occasion consisted of E. J. Brown, Moses H. 
Grinnell, E. M. Madden, J. S. T. Stranahan, C. E. R. Lud- 
dington, Lyman Tremain, Edward Dodd, R. W. Andrews, 
Alonzo Wood, Alexander Campbell, William H. Lucien, D. 
L. Follett, J. C. Smith, William Bowdoin, H. C. Rodgers, 
and Thomas T. Flagler. 1 A majority of these were said to be 
anti-Weed men, 2 and it was claimed that the surrender of 

1 All of the above particulars relating to these caucuses are based on 
the following: Letter , of "A Republican member of the Assembly," 
ante; letter to the editors of the Albany Evening Journal, signed 
" A Union Democratic Member of the Assembly," in the Albany 
Evening Journal, May 1; Herald, April 11, 19; Tribune, April 21. 

5 Argus, April 21 ; Rochester Daily Union, quoted in the Argus, April 
^5- 



397] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 igy 

the Weed-Seward adherents was due to Raymond. 1 When 
it came to signing the address, some of the Republicans 
showed hesitation. A straight Republican caucus was there- 
fore called immediately after the adjournment of the Legis- 
lature ; and as a result, nearly all of the Republican members 
signed. 2 The two state committees, that of the Republicans 
and that appointed by the legislative caucus, thenceforth co- 
operated in arranging for the meeting of a state convention. 
We have now to consider the Union legislative address 
and the appended resolutions. The address opened with a 
strong plea for the repression of party and for a united 
support of the administration. Referring to the events of 
1861, it said: 

In this State, as elsewhere, the popular impulse demanded that 
patriotic men of all parties should lay aside, for the time, all 
differences of political sentiment . . . The great body of peo- 
ple were ready for such a union, and nothing but the obstinate 
resistance of a powerful organization claiming to represent the 
Democratic party and controlling all its organized means of 
action stood in the way of its consummation. 

The address then dwelt on the example of the previous year, 
when Republicans and Union Democrats united in many 
districts in choosing legislative candidates. Those elected 
thus had " acted together as Union men, ignoring past dif- 
ferences and discarding political distinctions. They or- 

1 Argus, April 21. In the letter signed "A Republican member of 
the Assembly" (referred to above), Raymond appears as a harmonizer. 
3 Herald, April 23; Argus, April 25. The Tribune in an editorial of 
April 29th said : " We regret that a few firm and true Republicans, 
including several leading Senators, have not yet signed the Address, 
deeming their hesitation required by fidelity to their party." The 
Argus of April 29th gave a list of ten senators and eleven assembly- 
men, belonging to the majority, who had not yet signed the address. 



I9 8 ^W 7 YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [398 

ganized the Assembly on this basis and their proceedings 
have been characterized by harmonious cooperation. . . . 
The heart-burnings and bickerings of party have been ban- 
ished." The emergency was not yet past. Many great 
problems arising out of the war were still to be solved, and 
they would " require the united efforts . . . for years to 
come, of all true, loyal and patriotic men to carry us in 
safety through the storm." 

Arbitrary arrests, suppressions of treasonable newspapers, 
etc., were indirectly defended, the address speaking of the 
acts of the national administration " which under the pres- 
sure of imperative necessity, it had been compelled to adopt 
for the successful prosecution of the war and the arrest of 
measures in progress within the limits of our own State to 
afford aid and comfort to the rebellion." The patriotism 
of the people in not only sacrificing men and money but also 
surrendering temporarily their dearly valued personal rights 
such as freedom of speech and habeas corpus, was praised. 
" When the war is closed, we demand freedom of speech 
and of the press in every State and in every section of the 
Union." 

As for slavery, the address took a stand fully as advanced 
as that of the Republican party at that time. " Slavery," 
it read, " if not the primary cause, was the pretext and 
powerful agent of the present rebellion." The endeavor to 
reverse the verdict of the ballot-box so as to make the gen- 
eral government subservient to the slaveholding interest had 
failed, " and the permanent welfare and settled sentiment 
of the country forbid any attempt to soften this failure or 
qualify in any degree its disastrous effects upon slavery 
itself." That institution, the address declared, had been shaken 
to the foundations by the war. Not only was it affirmed that 
" slavery must never again be permitted to invade free ter- 



399] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1862 L gg 

ritory " or " bring new slave States into the Union " and 
that " it must cease to exist in the District of Columbia; " 
but it was also declared that " the Constitution must here- 
after be administered in the spirit of Freedom . . . and not 
for the perpetuation of slavery." The confiscation act as 
applied to slavery was approved of, as was the President's 
message recommending federal aid to states adopting an 
emancipation policy. That the Union Democrats acceded 
to such advanced ground is noteworthy. 

On the subject of the war, the address opposed any settle- 
ment which should " leave in doubt the power of the Gen- 
eral Government to maintain its rightful authority " or 
" leave the material ability of this treason but partially 
broken and subdued," or which should " recognize any di- 
vision of the Union, or any concession to the political de- 
mands of the slaveholding interests. . . ." The adminis- 
tration of Lincoln was praised, its difficulties mentioned, 
and the Democratic opposition scored for its hostility. 

... in everything it [the government] has hitherto done, and 
in everything it proposes to do for the preservation of the 
Union and the restoration ... of the Constitution, it encoun- 
ters the settled hostility of men who claim to be Democrats 
. . . who seek ... by the control of the organized machinery 
of that party to defeat its policy and destroy its influence. 

The address concluded with an appeal to Republicans, 
Union Democrats, and all other loyal men who supported 
the administration and who assented to the principles stated 
above, " to waive all questions of mere form and usage in 
political actions" and to unite in electing three delegates from 
each assembly district to meet in convention for the nomi- 
nation of state officers. Then followed the resolutions, to 
the same effect as the address, but in addition condemning 



200 NEiV YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [400 

corruption in the government, calling for " strict economy, 
scrupulous honesty, and punishment of dishonesty, extrava- 
gance, and fraud," and appointing a Union state committee. 1 
The document was, on the whole, an able and patriotic 
paper. The action of the legislative caucus attracted con- 
siderable attention outside of New York. Colonel Forney 
wrote to the Philadelphia Press: " I feel authorized to state 
that the President and every member of his Cabinet are anx- 
ious that the good example of New York shall be followed 
up in every other State." 2 Administration newspapers 
commended the address and resolutions. 3 It does not seem 
an exaggeration to conclude that the action of New York 
on this occasion was of influence in the formation of a 
Union party in the North generally. 

1 The Tribune, April 29, contains the address and resolutions printed 
in full. 

2 Extract from the Philadelphia Press quoted in the Albany Even- 
ing Journal, April 26. 

3 Approving notices from the Newark Mercury , Philadelphia Press, 
Newark Daily Advertiser (in Albany Evening Journal, May 2), Spring- 
field Republican, Sandusky Register (in Albany Evening Journal, May 
3), Detroit Daily Tribune, Boston Journal, Pittsburg Gazette (in Al- 
bany Evening Journal, May 6). 



CHAPTER VII 
The Revival of Party Politics 

From the adjournment of the Legislature to the end of 
July, 1862, might be called formative months in the history 
of the politics of this State. We have seen how quiet that 
field was from January to May; but by the end of July, 
there was great activity. There were a number of causes at 
work producing this change. These included, of course, 
deeply-rooted forces, not the product of this particular time, 
such as the effects of party affiliation of many years. War 
or no war, the offices still had to be distributed ; and the Re- 
gency, Tammany, and Mozart were alike hungry. But there 
were three other influences sufficiently traceable and con- 
nected more especially with the spring and summer of 1862, 
which contributed to renewed partisan intensity in New 
York State. These factors were the reentrance of Thurlow 
Weed on the political stage, the gradual drift of the Repub- 
licans toward emancipation, and the reverses experienced 
by the Union armies during the summer. 

We miss Weed from the last days of 1861 to the summer 
of 1862. During that interval he was in Europe on a quasi- 
diplomatic errand. 1 Perhaps, there was some connection 
between his change of occupation and the serious checks 
which, during the few years preceding this trip, had been 
administered to his long career as dispenser of patronage 
and controller of conventions. At any rate, the Republicans 

1 For an account of this, see Weed's Autobiography, p. 634 et seq. 
401] 201 



202 NEIV YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [402 

went through the first part of 1862 without his management 
or direct influence. On the 5th of June, however, Weed 
landed in New York City, 1 ready once more to pull the 
political wires. On his arrival, he was tendered a public 
reception by the aldermen and councilmen of the metro- 
polis, 2 though the majority of both boards were Democrats; 
but he declined, and left for Albany. The Tribune seized 
the opportunity to exhibit the corrupt motives of the alder- 
men and incidentally to make a sly dig at Weed. It said : 

We indignantly repel the suggestion that irony lurks under the 
ostentatious zeal of Messrs Boole, Genet & Co. to give Mr. 
Weed a benefit . . . They are simply intent on having a good 
time at the public cost . . . But they will be disappointed. 
. . . Mr. Weed has traveled and knows the ropes . . . He 
can bear a crowd when its focus is someone else than himself ; 
but he hates to be stared at, and he has a perfect horror of 
being called on for a speech. 3 

Soon after, Weed held a private reception at the Astor 
House. The politicians of almost every stripe were pres- 
ent. The Herald gave an interesting description of Weed 
as he then looked. It said: 

[He] has not to all appearances benefited much by his trip 
to Europe. His florid complexion is replaced by a grayish 
sallow tinge, . . . His clothes appear to hang loosely . . . , 
while the stoop of his shoulders is becoming more apparent 
every day. His eye ... is, however, still bright and pene- 
trating, and although he has aged considerably during the last 
few months, his energy of mind and body is still unimpaired. 1 

1 Herald, June 6. 

2 Albany Evening Journal, June 3. 
s Tribune, June 5. 

4 Herald, June n. 



403] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 203 

To the reentrance of Weed into New York politics can be 
traced, I think, the direction which the differences in the 
ranks of the administration supporters in this State took. 
Not that there surely would have been complete harmony 
had Weed remained abroad. Perhaps the personal rival- 
ries, some evidences of which we have noted in the Legis- 
lature of 1862, would have reappeared in the fall con- 
vention, even though Weed had not been there. But no 
division on the question of slavery or on the attitude 
toward the seceded states had appeared in the Republican 
ranks during that session. Weed, however, was inclined to 
be a conservative. He had not been able to carry with him 
his followers of 1861 ; but his presence in 1862 served to di- 
vide the Republicans rather sharply on the question of 
whether the nominee for governor should be a radical or a 
conservative. 

As soon as Weed returned, the New York Herald 
began to advocate an alliance between the Weed Re- 
publicans and the Democrats, on the basis of support of the 
President and the restoration of the Union as it was and of 
the constitution unchanged; and it stated that steps toward 
such a coalition were being taken. Weed's own words in 
his Albany Evening Journal gave color to such rumors. It 
seemed as though a combination by Weed and the Regency 
against the radicals was a possibility when the Regency 
mouthpiece, the Albany Argus, came out with a hearty ap- 
proval of the sentiments of its former rival, saying: 

It is gratifying to find an organ of the position and influence 
of the Evening Journal giving utterance to truths against which 
too many of his [Weed's] party close their eyes, and boldly 
denouncing that evil spirit at the North which would play into 
the hands of treason and shiver the Union into fragments 
rather than fail in the design to abolitionize the country. The 



204 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [404 

return of the veteran editor of the Journal will be hailed with 
satisfaction, if it is to establish in its columns the consistent 
advocacy of such sentiments. 1 

Once again, the tocsin was sounded by Greeley. A Tribune 
editorial read: 

The Albany Evening Journal has furnished very few useful 
and welcome quotations to the Pro-Slavery organs for months, 
but the return of the veteran editor from Europe has been 
signalized by a revival of the characteristics of 1860-61. . . . 
If the Journal will only keep straight on in this path, there is 
no reason why it and the Argus should squabble for the State 
printing . . . . 2 

Such talk continued through the summer, until, when the 
convention met, radicalism and conservatism clashed in the 
contest for the gubernatorial nomination. 

We come now to the second influence which has been 
mentioned as having given a strong impulse to the partisan 
revival, namely, the progress of the Republican party 
toward abolition. One of the resolutions adopted by the 
Democratic State Convention of September, 1861, declared 
that the Democracy would " regard any attempt to pervert 
this conflict for the emancipation of the slaves as fatal to all 
hopes of the restoration of the Union ; " and it was further 
declared that the Democrats of New York would not sup- 
port such a war. 3 Governor Morgan, in his annual mes- 
sage of 1862, omitted any direct reference to the slavery 
question * and so far as national affairs were concerned, 

1 Argus, June 21. 3 Tribune, June 27. 

3 Herald, Sept. 6, 1861. 

4 Except a brief mention of " the spirit of nullification " reviving 
" under the form of slavery agitation." 



4 5 ] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 205 

contented himself with a review of the crisis caused by se- 
cession, the emergency which had confronted the state au- 
thorities at the outbreak of the war, and the manner in 
which the call had been met. 1 This message deserves to 
be contrasted with that of Seymour in the following year. 
In the Legislature of 1862, almost the only important oppo- 
sition which the Democrats showed was connected with the 
policy of the national administration on slavery; though 
that opposition was, as we have noticed, very weak. 
The Democratic press in this State generally disapproved 
Lincoln's message recommending cooperation with states 
adopting gradual emancipation. The Albany Argils said: 
" The impulsiveness and want of consideration in the Ex- 
ecutive gives a sense of insecurity. . . . Let us hope that 
this proposition — which only shows how far we are drifting 
from Constitutional duty — will share the fate of the Presi- 
dential scheme for colonization, and be considered only to 
be dismissed." 2 The Buffalo Courier said: "What good 
is to come of it ? Why introduce a disturbing element into 
national affairs . . . ? We regret that the President has 
taken time to say anything about slavery." 3 Others pro- 
nounced the message a sop to abolition clamor. 

New York was a center from which were radiating 
contrary sentiments. The Tribune, the Post, and the 
Independent, were powerful forces in moulding Re- 
publican opinion toward emancipation. On March 6th, 
an anti-slavery mass meeting was held in New York 
City. Among the vice-presidents and secretaries were 
George Bancroft, Rev. Dr. Tyng, Professor Francis Lieber, 
David Dudley Field, William Cullen Bryant, President 

1 Lincoln Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 357-411. 
1 Quoted in the Tribune, Mar. 12. 3 Ibid. 



206 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4 q6 

Charles King of Columbia College, and Charles A. Dana, 
The principal speech was made by 'Carl Schurz. 1 A few 
months later, an Emancipation League was organized in 
New York City. The Herald reported that arrangements 
were being made to spread the League's work throughout 
the North. 2 William Cullen Bryant became president of 
the organization. 3 

At the same time, anti-abolition sentiment was becoming 
active. The Argus, roused by General Hunter's order, 4 
raged at the dangers which threatened the country from 
revolutionists. 5 In June, some twenty-five men met at the 
Everett House in New York City, in response to an invita- 
tion signed by William C. Prime of the Journal of Com- 
merce, James Brooks of the Express, Benjamin Ray, chair- 
man of the Mozart Hall General Committee, and Elijah F. 
Purdy, chairman of the Tammany Hall General Committee. 
The object was to consult on the sinking of past differences 
so as to unite against the radicals. Among those present, 
besides Prime, Brooks, and Ray, were the following promi- 
nent New York politicians: Augustus Schell, Fernando 
Wood, Gideon J. Tucker, F. A. Tallmadge, and John A. 
Green. A permanent organization was formed. Those 
present were reported as favoring sustaining the President 
in support of the war but opposing abolition. This meet- 
ing took place six days before the caucus of conservative 
members of Congress, held in Washington and presided 
over by Crittenden. 

1 Tribune, Mar. 7. 

2 Herald, June 7. 

8 Herald, June 22. 

* For Hunter's order, see Rhodes, History of the United States, iv, p. 65. 

5 Argus, May 21. 

* Herald, June 22. 



4 07] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 2 OJ 

The next step of the New York City conservatives was a 
resort to the tactics used previous to the opening of the war 
— a Union mass meeting; Union in the sense of the demon- 
strations of 1859-60, not those of 1861. This occurred on 
July 1st, at the Academy of Music, and was under the aus- 
pices of the Young Men's Democratic Association. 1 The 
Leader, the organ of Tammany, announced the affair as 
" a grand gathering of the National men of the Empire 
City ; " it said that the call was signed by Democrats, Old 
Line Whigs, and converted Republicans, and invited all op- 
posed to further agitation of the negro question and in favor 
of the constitution as it was, to attend. 2 The meeting was a 
large one. Letters were read from Crittenden, John S. Carlile, 
and Reverdy Johnson ; and speeches were made by Charles 
A. Wyckliffe of Kentucky, William Duer of Oswego, who 
had long been a leading New York Whig, James Brooks, 
and Fernando Wood. The last mentioned denounced Con- 
gress as an abolition concern that must be gotten rid of. He 
said: 

It is to be done as Oliver Cromwell sent home the Rump Par- 
liament, by walking into Parliament and scattering it to the 
winds. Let your voice be heard in the capital of the country, 
and if your armies are not successful at once, I for one raise 
the standard, — a change of measures or a change of men. 3 

The resolutions adopted, after declaring that it was the duty 
of all citizens to devote everything, if necessary, to the pre- 
servation of the Union, denounced secession and abolition, 
reaffirmed the Crittenden resolution of 1861 as to the pur- 

1 Herald, July 2. 

a Quoted in the Tribune, June 30. 

* Tribune, July 7. 



208 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [408 

poses of the war, denounced the plans of the New York 
Emancipation League as an attack upon the American 
Union, expressed approval of the President's action in re- 
voking the proclamations of abolition generals, thanked 
McClellan and Halleck, condemned governmental extrava- 
gance and plundering by contractors, and asserted that "this 
is a government of white men . . . [that it] was estab- 
lished exclusively for the white race ; that the negro race are 
not entitled and ought not to be admitted to political or 
social equality." 1 The annual Fourth of July celebration 
of Tammany was a similar demonstration. 2 

Taking up now the influence of the Union reverses in the 
summer of 1862, it should first be noted that the armies of 
the North were quite successful during the first part of the 
year. One Union victory — large or small — followed an- 
other in rapid succession. No doubt, this in part accounts 
for the calm in the New York political situation during that 
time. The retreat from the Peninsula came as a tremendous 
disappointment. There is nothing like unsuccessful war 
to stir up opposition to an administration. So it was in 
New York. At the same time, however, there immediately 
followed a series of Union war meetings throughout the 
State, in favor of sustaining the government, raising boun- 
ties, and encouraging enlistments. These assemblages were 
addressed by men of all parties. The natural effect of such 
enthusiasm was to weaken the opposition to the adminis- 
tration, and in a way to offset the influence of the reverses. 
Some of these war meetings steered clear of the slavery 
question, while others did not. A Queens County demon- 
stration favored the adoption of every means known to 

1 Herald, July 2. 
1 Herald, July 6. 



4 G9] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 209 

civilized warfare to subdue the rebellion. 1 A Brooklyn war 
meeting adopted a similar resolution. 2 At another Union 
meeting in Queens County, a prominent speaker said : " We 
meet to declare that political ambition and corruption, trea- 
son, slavery, abolitionism, or any wild fanaticism, shall 
never separate or divide our country." 3 The New York 
City war meeting in Union Square on July 15th was of a 
mixed character. At stand number five, the abolitionists 
were in force and listened to their favorite, General Fre- 
mont ; while at stand number four, the crowd sang, " We'll 
hang Horace Greeley on a sour apple tree." 4 

However much public opinion was rallied to the support 
of the government by such meetings, the excitement over the 
proposed state draft must have been a counterbalancing in- 
fluence. Despite the war meetings, despite liberal bounties, 
despite the enthusiasm aroused by the visits of Generals 
Sickles and Meagher and other officers from the front, re- 
cruiting in New York was rather slow during July and 
August, 1862. Again and again, it was said that a draft was 
contemplated or it was actually announced for such and such 
a day. The draft was not held in New York in 1862, but 
all preparations for it were made. 5 Accounts of these ar- 
rangements, appointments of enrolling officers, details as to 
who were and who were not exempt, notices of the flight 
of those seeking to escape the service, etc., appeared almost 
daily in the newspapers. Though this draft was not pub- 
licly attacked by the Democrats, the prolonged agitation 

1 Herald, July 27. 

2 Herald, Aug. 20. 

3 Thomas Addis Emmet at Newtown, Herald, Aug. n. 

4 Herald, July 16. 

5 This was a state draft — not a national draft like those of the fol- 
lowing years. See Annual Cyclopaedia for 1862, p. 659. 



2io NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4IO 

over it doubtless had a great effect in arousing dissatisfac- 
tion with the ruling party. 1 

By midsummer, then, there had been dissipated any pros- 
pect of averting a spirited political battle in this State. In 
the election of 1861, the New York Democrats had suffered 
under the imputation of being opposed to the government 
at Washington. Acordingly, we find that each party in 
1862 tried to make the other appear as the one in factious 
opposition to the national administration. The Union State 
Committee not only acted with the Republican State Com- 
mittee in preparing for the fall campaign, but also invited 
the Democratic and Constitutional Union State Committees 
to join in calling a convention for the nomination of state 
officers, on the basis of approval of the legislative caucus 
address and resolutions of April. The Constitutional Union 
Committee, while asserting that " it was the highest duty 
of all citizens, at the present time, to lay aside partisan 
controversy," declined the invitation, declaring that the 
address embodied sentiments tending to continue such 
discussion, and did not discriminate " against that 
numerous class in their [the Republicans'] ranks who 
seek to override the constitution." 2 The Democratic State 
Committee took a similar position. It asserted that the 
legislative address signally misrepresented the acts and 
motives of the Democratic party, that the latter's patriotism 
and loyalty to the constitution needed no defence, that the 
war had shown the devotion of Democrats to the country 
rising above all considerations of partisan prejudice or in- 

1 This general impression from the newspapers is confirmed by the 
remark by state Senator Truman at a Republican caucus in February 
1863, wherein he assailed Governor Morgan as having " been the prin- 
cipal means of defeating the Union party last fall by holding back 
the draft and carrying it into the election" (Argus, Feb. 4, 1863). 

2 Herald, July 1. 



4II ] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 21 1 

terest, that " the Democracy of New York stand ready to 
unite with all patriotic citizens, without reference to former 
party combinations, who agree in sustaining the govern- 
ment in the prosecution of the . . . war . . . for the pur- 
pose of restoring the Union as it was and maintaining the 
Constitution as it is ;" but that they " repel all idea of politi- 
cal association with that class of fanatics who are raising 
unnecessary and factious issues." x 

Thereupon, the Republican and Union State Committees 
issued a call for a Union State Convention, and invited all 
Republicans, all Democrats, and all loyal citizens, sup- 
porters of the administration and sympathizers with the 
principles of the legislative address, to unite in choosing 
delegates. 2 At the same time, the Democratic press insisted 
that it was the Democrats who had laid aside party while 
the Republicans divided the North by zeal for abolition. 3 
" The platform of the Democratic State Committee," said 
the Buffalo Courier, 

is simple and comprehensive, so terse that it requires no ex- 
planation, so broad that every Union-loving man can stand 
upon it. . . . Under this call no man is required to endorse the 
action of any previous caucus or convention ; he is not asked 
to adopt any theory in regard to the war ; . . . every man 
that loves this . . . government, . . . and who wishes to pre- 
serve its integrity, is cordially invited to unite with the only 
national political organization now existing; 

and these assertions were concluded with a warm demand 

1 Answer of the Democratic State Committee printed in the Herald, 
July 10. 

2 Herald, July 24. 

3 E. g. Argus, Aug. 13, 23; Buffalo Courier, quoted by the Argus, 
Aug. 20; Kingston Argus, quoted in the Albany Argus, Aug. 21. 
The same sentiment was contained in the addresses of the temporary 
chairman (Hon. Alonzo C. Paige) and the president (Wm. C 
Murphy) of the Democratic State Convention in September. 



212 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4I2 

for the instant reinforcement of the army. 1 Thus, each 
party made a bid for the " war vote." 

The Constitutional Union convention assembled at Troy 
on the 9th of September, and the Democratic convention a 
day later at the neighboring city of Albany. This prox- 
imity of time and place was not without a purpose. The 
idea was to gain for the Democratic ticket the support of 
the old gentlemen who had once been Silver Gray Whigs. 2 
Then too, it permitted the claim to be made that the Demo- 
crats had risen above party in accepting as their principal 
candidate the nominee of another convention. The Tribune 
in an editorial characterized this ally of the Democrats thus : 

The "Constitutional Union Convention," which met . . . last 
Tuesday, to secure good places on the fusion ticket for certain 
aspirants of its own faith, was a body respectable in the past 
positions of its leading members. Messrs. F. A. Tallmadge, 
James Brooks, and George Briggs have been in Congress ; Mr. 
B. Davis Noxon has tried to be ; and these men present or 
those represented might officer a quite respectable party. But 
when you look for the rank and file of this seedy organiza- 
tion, your eye discerns but an aching void. Briefly, it has no 
rank and file — not ten thousand in our whole State — and the 
whole concern is liable to an indictment as a device for ob- 
taining votes under false pretences. . . . The " Constitutional 
Union Party " is an unmitigated humbug — . . . . 3 

There were not a hundred present at the convention. The 
temporary chairman, B. Davis Noxon, made a remarkable 

1 Buffalo Courier, quoted by the Argus, Aug. 20. 

2 James Brooks and ex-Governor Hunt, both prominent former 
Whigs, received congressional nominations from the Democrats. 

8 Tribune, Sept. 13. 



413] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 213 

speech, in which, while uttering no word of condemnation 
for the states which had seceded, he said : 

We have had enough of this war; blood enough has been spilt; 
the country has suffered enough, and we have an abundance of 
expenses. Let us stop this war without any further expenses 
than are absolutely necessary. . . . The crisis of this hour is 
appalling. It is not alone that our armies are defeated. The 
painful truth is manifest that the President of the United 
States and our generals in the field are embarrassed and threat- 
ened by the leaders of a party whose object is not the restora- 
tion of this Union, but the abolition of slavery. 1 

James Brooks, a former Whig who had, as we have seen, 
recently acted with sundry Democratic politicians, moved 
that a committee of conference be appointed to consult with 
a similar committee of the Democratic convention. The 
motion was withdrawn to allow an informal ballot for gov- 
ernor and lieutenant-governor to be taken. For the former 
office, Horatio Seymour received 32 votes, John A. Dix 
20, Millard Fillmore 6, and scattering 3. For the lieuten- 
ant-governorship, W. C. Hasbrouck received 29 votes, 
while four distinguished representatives of dough-faced 
Whiggism — ex-Governor Washington Hunt, William Duer, 
Lorenzo Burrows, and James Brooks — divided the rest. 
The motion to appoint a conference committee was then 
adopted, and the committee, with James Brooks at its head, 
was duly named. 2 

When the Democratic convention met, the nomination 
of Horatio Seymour was almost a foregone conclusion. 
The newspaper correspondents, the day previous to the open- 
ing of the convention, reported the unanimity of feeling 

1 Tribune, Sept. 10; Herald, Sept. 10. 
3 Herald, Sept. 10. 



2i 4 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4I4 

for Seymour. 1 The latter was present as a delegate from 
Oneida County. Other prominent men in attendance were 
August Belmont, William Kelly, Dean Richmond, Peter 
Cagger, Sanford E. Church, Elijah F. Purdy, Benjamin 
Wood, and Fernando Wood. The remarkable feature about 
this convention was its harmony. New York County did 
not present the rival delegations from Tammany and Mo- 
zart, which had distracted Democratic convention after con- 
vention. Fernando Wood and Elijah F. Purdy had laid 
aside differences. Their followers had begun to feel the 
fact that most of the federal, state and municipal patronage 
was in the hands of the Republicans. So we find Purdy and 
Wood joining in calling the conservative meeting in June, 
referred to above. In July Purdy, at a meeting of the Tam- 
many Hall General Committee, introduced a resolution fav- 
oring cooperation with other Democratic organizations so 
as to avoid division at the fall election. 2 Mozart like- 
wise resolved to have no contest at the coming state con- 
vention " in view of the exigencies of the country " and the 
necessity of the Democracy of New York City being thor- 
oughly united " to secure a return of democratic supremacy 
in the administration of the State government." 3 Accord- 
ingly, Tammany and Mozart made a deal by which the 
former had the delegates from four districts and the latter 
those from the remaining three districts.* On the floor of 

1 Tribune, Sept. 10, containing both Associated Press and Tribune 
special despatches. 

2 Tribune, July n. , 

s Advertisement of Mozart Hall, Herald, Sept. 5. 

4 Advertisements of the Tammany and Mozart Hall General Com- 
mittees, giving the facts of the conference and the terms of the fusion, 
Herald, Oct. n; Tribune, Sept. 6. In the charter election in the fol- 
lowing December, Tammany and Mozart united on a municipal ticket 
(Herald, Nov. 2i). 



415] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 215 

Ijhe convention, Purdy and Wood walked arm in arm and 
sat together. When the roll was called, Purdy arose, and 
expressing his gratification that New York City presented 
a united front for the first time in many years, moved that 
the names of the delegation headed by the Honorable Fer- 
nando Wood be called with those of the Tammany delega- 
tion — a proposal greeted with cheers * and accepted. 

A letter from the committee on conference of the Con- 
stitutional Union convention suggesting that the Democrats 
appoint a similar committee was laid before the convention, 
and the proposal was acceded to. 2 Later, after the perma- 
nent organization had been effected, the Constitutional 
Union committee were invited to take seats in the conven- 
tion, which they did amid great applause. But this enthu- 
siasm was nothing compared to what followed when Elijah 
F. Purdy moved that Horatio Seymour be unanimously 
nominated for governor by acclamation. The delegates 
rose to their feet, and cheer after cheer rent the hall. The 
motion was carried amid thunderous applause. 

Deafening calls for Seymour ensued. The candidate soon 
appeared, and when the delegates had quieted down pro- 
ceeded to address them, interrupted from time to time by 
enthusiastic approval. He spoke of the efforts of the Dem- 
ocracy of New York to avert the war, criticised Congress 
for its violation of the Crittenden resolution, showed how 
the course of Congress tended to unite the South and divide 
the North, and held up the Republican press as attacking 
a Republican administration. Then, he asserted that the 
Republicans were not fitted to carry on the government. 
Though not intentionally dishonest and though the party 

1 Herald, Sept. 11; Argus, Sept. 11. 

2 The letter is printed in the Tribune, Sept. 11. 



2i6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4 i6 

contained loyal men, its leaders were dangerous and unwise. 
The men in power could not save the country. The Demo- 
cratic party would continue loyally to support the President 
and give him all the men he called for to uphold the gov- 
ernment, execute the laws, put down the rebellion, and gain 
an honorable and lasting peace. But that party would not 
submit to terrorism. The President had been less em- 
barrassed by Democrats than by Republicans. 1 When Sey- 
mour had finished, there was another scene of tremendous 
enthusiasm. Within the narrow partisan position which 
the New York Democrats had taken, the speech evinced 
good political leadership, since its criticism of the administra- 
tion was not tainted by Copperheadism. The Tribune owned 
that the utterance was guarded and cautious, and could only 
say that Seymour " had done his best to shoot so as to hit it 
if it is a deer and miss it if it is a calf." 2 

When the applause following Seymour's speech had died 
down, there were loud cries for Fernando Wood. The 
latter briefly endorsed Seymour's sentiments, and pledged 
that New York City would give the candidate 30,000 ma- 
jority — a promise subsequently made good. A motion to 
print 200,000 copies of Seymour's address was then adopted. 
Meanwhile, the two conference committees had labored in 
vain to reach an agreement. The chairman of the Demo- 
cratic conference committee so reported to the convention, 
and also that the Constitutional Unionists wanted the nomi- 
nations for lieutenant-governor and clerk of the Court of 
Appeals, and that ,they offered for the former office the 
names of T. B. St. John, ex-Governor Hunt, and William 
C. Hasbrouck. After debate, the convention took a vote 

1 Argus, Sept. 11; Herald, Sept. II, 
^Tribune, Sept. II. 



417] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 2 \J 

resulting in David R. Floyd Jones receiving 72 votes to 47 
for T. B. St. John. The ticket was soon completed without 
trouble. A bone was thrown to the Constitutional Unionists 
in the nomination of F. A. Tallmadge for clerk of the Court 
of Appeals, which concession, though not satisfactory to 
the rump of the Bell-Everettites, resulted in their endorse- 
ment of the entire ticket. 1 

The resolutions adopted dealt only with questions arising 
out of the war. The restoration of the Union as it had 
been and the maintenance of the constitution as it was were 
coupled with the use of legitimate means for the suppression 
of the rebellion, as conditions upon which the Democrats of 
New York would support the government; the Crittenden 
resolution was reaffirmed and its violation was declared to 
be a breach of public faith ; liberty of speech and of the press 
was demanded; and illegal and unconstitutional arrests and 
imprisonments of citizens of the State of New York were 
denounced. 2 

From the mere party point of view, Seymour's nomina- 
tion was, perhaps, the strongest that could have been made 
then. His character, bearing, and antecedents were well 
suited to harmonize the various elements of the party, his 
veto of the Maine liquor bill during his previous term as 
governor brought to him the support of a most powerful 
interest, he was one of the most effective Democratic orators 
in the State, and he had the strength which naturally comes 
to a strict partisan with some political accomplishments. 
The Albany Evening Journal acknowledged that Seymour's 
personal character was untarnished, and that the other 

1 Resolutions of the Constitutional Union conference committee, 
Argus, Sept. 29. 

3 All the above details of the convention are based upon the Herald, 
Sept. 12, and the Argus, Sept. 12. 



2i8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4I 8 

Democratic candidates were personally unexceptional, hav- 
ing been hitherto in the public service without any serious 
fault being found with them. 1 Thus, the Democrats en- 
tered upon the campaign with good prospects of success. 

The Republican-Union convention assembled at Syracuse 
on September 24th. It was a large body, having between 
350 and 400 members. 2 In the previous year, the movement 
in favor of a single party to support the war and the admin- 
istration carrying it on, had taken the form of two assem- 
blages, forming a People's convention and a Republican 
convention, meeting simultaneously and adopting practi- 
cally the same ticket. In 1862, there was but one conven- 
tion, and the membership included both Republicans and 
Union or War Democrats. 3 Thus, by 1862, there was a 
more complete fusion of the two elements into one Union 
party. 

Two days before the opening session, Horace Greeley 
arrived at the scene of action, to work for the nomination of 
General Wadsworth and the adoption of an emancipation 
platform. 4 James S. Wadsworth was a gentleman highly 
respected for his ability, philanthropy, independence, and 
public spirit. He was very wealthy, having inherited from 
his father a large estate in the Genesee River valley. He 
had been educated at Harvard and Yale, and had studied 
law at Albany and in Daniel Webster's office, though he did 
not practice. In the days of Martin Van Buren, Wads- 

1 Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 11. 

2 "A large proportion [of the members] had always been Democrats 
till the bombardment of Fort Sumter." — Tribune, Sept. 26. " On the 
front seats appeared many new faces to a republican convention." — 
Herald, Sept. 25. 

3 Tribune, Sept. 22. " One of the strongest in numbers . . . ever 
convened in the State." — Herald, Sept. 24. 

4 Herald. Sept. 24. 



4 ! 9 ] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 219 

worth had zealously supported free soil. He had voted in 
the Democratic State Convention of 1847 for the resolution 
against the extension of slavery, and had acted from 1847 
to 1856 with the wing of his party which upheld that prin- 
ciple. In 1856 he presided at a convention of Free-soil 
Democrats which ratified the nominations of Fremont and 
Dayton, and thus passed over to the Republican party. 
Wadsworth had never as yet run for any office, though he 
had been prominently mentioned for the United States sen- 
atorship in 1857 1 and had been urged to allow the presen- 
tation of his name for the gubernatorial nomination in 
i860. 2 In 1861, he was chosen by the Legislature a dele- 
gate to the Peace Conference. When communications with 
the Capital were cut off in April of that year, Wadsworth 
freighted a vessel at his own expense and accompanied it 
to Annapolis. 3 Upon the outbreak of hostilities, he en- 
tered the volunteer army, and was made aid to McDowell, 
participating in the battle of Bull Run. Then he had been 
appointed a brigadier-general, and during the winter of 
1861-62 had advocated an advance of the Union forces, 
condemning McClellan for his inactivity. In April, 1862, 
Wadsworth was made military governor of the city of 
Washington, in which capacity he earned by his attitude 
toward the recovery of runaway slaves encomiums from the 
Tribune and expressions of disgust from the Herald. Thus, 
the radicals in the Republican ranks early turned to Wads- 
worth as suitable for the head of the ticket. 4 Just at this 

1 Weed, Autobiography, pp. 472-3. 

2 Tribune, Sept. 26. 

3 Albany Evening Journal, May 9, 1864. 

* The above particulars, except where otherwise noted, are drawn 
from the Annual Cyclopcedia for 1864, 810-11, and from the speech of 



220 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [420 

time, there came opportunely for Greeley and his followers 
Lincoln's preliminary emancipation proclamation. They 
accordingly claimed that Wadsworth's nomination and a 
resolution in favor of emancipation were necessary to evince 
support of the President by the party. 1 

On the other hand, Weed advocated the nomination of 
General Dix and favored a less radical platform. 2 John A. 
Dix was a Democrat who already had had a most dis- 
tinguished political career in both the state and the na- 
tional governments. He had been an officer in the War of 
1812, remaining in the army until 1826. He then studied 
law, entered politics, and became one of the Albany Re- 
gency in its best days when it included Silas Wright and 
Martin Van Buren. In 1833, Dix became secretary of 
state of New York, and in 1845, United States senator. In 
1859, he was made postmaster of New York City to 
restore order after the defalcation of Isaac V. Fowler. Ap- 
pointed secretary of the treasury in the last days of 
Buchanan's administration, Dix by his patriotic conduct of 
that office had gained enduring fame. At the beginning 
of hostilities, he was commissioned a major-general of vol- 
unteers, and was in command of Fortress Monroe when the 
New York Republican-Union convention of 1862 assembled. 
Dix was one of the best examples of a War Democrat. 

David Dudley Field in the convention of 1862 (Tribune, Oct. 3). 
Later Wadsworth fought gallantly at Fredericksburg, Chancellors- 
ville, and Gettysburg; was advanced to the command of a division in 
1864; died in May of that year from a wound received in the battle 
of the Wilderness. 

1 Herald, Sept. 24. " The President's Proclamation of Emancipation 
comes just in time to receive this enthusiastic recognition and sanc- 
tion " — Tribune, Sept. 25. 

2 Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 25. 



4 2l ] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 2 2I 

Governor Morgan was mentioned for a second renomina- 
tion. He had been an able, honest, and patriotic official; 
and his untiring labors in raising and equipping troops as- 
suredly entitled him to such a reward. It was questioned 
at the time whether the Governor would consent to run 
again. This abnegation on his part was, perhaps, the 
recognition of a necessity. It was later said that Weed 
would have been glad to have had Morgan renominated but 
that the opposition to the -Governor had grown so during the 
summer, that when the convention assembled it was found 
that he could get but one-third of the votes. 1 If such oppo- 
sition existed, it was perhaps due to Morgan's conservative 
views, which had recently been manifested in his refusal to 
participate in the Altoona Conference. 2 Another man fre- 
quently spoken of for the nomination was Reuben E. Fen- 
ton, then a member of Congress from the Chautauqua dis- 
trict since 1857. His friends hoped that he would be the 
" dark horse " receiving the prize, as Ira Harris had been 
in the Evarts-Greeley contest of the previous year. 3 Finally, 
there was some talk of heading the ticket with James M. 
Cook, formerly banking superintendent and state senator. 

At the opening of the convention, almost the first oc- 
currence was an outbreak of the rivalry which had char- 
acterized the session of the Legislature of 1862. This time 
there was a spicy discussion between Thomas G. Alvord and 
Henry J. Raymond as to the method to be followed in choos- 
ing the committees, in which contest Raymond's motion 

1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 424. 

2 The Albany Argus declared that the refusal of Morgan to be 
present at Altoona was "made the subject of barroom attacks upon 
him at Syracuse " — Argus, Oct. 6. For the Altoona Conference, see 
Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln, vi, pp. 164-166. 

8 Dispatch of Horace Greeley to the Tribune, Sept. 23. 



222 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 422 

prevailed. 1 A long, able and patriotic speech by Lyman 
Tremain filled the afternoon session. He first spoke of the 
history and justification of the Union party movement in 
this State, and of its broad basis, including men of all 
past affiliations who sank previous differences for the one 
object of supporting the President in carrying on the war. 
There was the same necessity for a Union movement this 
year as the last. The recent Democratic convention was 
strongly and intensely partisan. It was necessary to post- 
pone every collateral question intended to divert attention 
from the great duty of prosecuting the war. " The highest 
dictates of patriotism," said Tremain, 

the true interests of the nation, and the . . . success of . . . 
the Government would be promoted ... if the people of this 
great State could all cooperate in their political action, and 
present an undivided front upon the single platform of a 
vigorous prosecution of the war . . . the moral effect of such 
a sublime spectacle, both at home and abroad, could scarcely 
be estimated. 

Then Tremain went on to review Seymour's attack upon 
the policy of abandoning party organizations during the 
war. Tremain declared rightly that the effect of Seymour's 
speech could hardly fail to be mischievous at that time. 
" Partisan discussions," he said, 

beget crimination and recrimination. They lead to bitter de- 
nunciations of those in power by speakers and presses. They 
tend to divert attention from the all-absorbing issue of the 
war. Jefferson Davis rejoices to see the formation of these 
parties. He has been deluded with the hope of dividing the 
people of the North. . . . The supposed benefits of party or- 

1 Herald, Sept. 25. 



423] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 223 

ganizations, alluded to by Mr. Seymour, have little force in a 
crisis like the present. . . . The wolf howling at our doors is 
the Rebellion. 

Then Tremain attacked Seymour for the latter's asser- 
tion that the Republican administration could never succeed 
in crushing the rebellion. Tremain said : 

Under the Constitution, the sole power of conducting this 
war devolves upon the General Government. ... A State 
Government . . . would have no power to engage in war, . . . 
to . . . control their movements one moment after the militia 
passed beyond the State's lines. . . . The General Govern- 
ment will continue in the hands of a " Republican Organiza- 
tion " until the 4th .of March, 1865. If, then, the Republican 
party cannot save the country . . . and ... [if it] must hold 
power for nearly three years, why should I waste my efforts 
in a vain attempt to sustain such a government. . . . Can vol- 
unteers be raised upon such a platform? 

Tremain also criticised, as contrary to history and truth, 
Seymour's contention that the responsibility for the war 
rested with the North. If the people desired to take the 
first step toward separation by an amendment to the con- 
stitution, they would by their votes express approval of 
Seymour's views. But if they were determined to continue 
fighting until unconditional surrender was obtained, they 
would vote for the party which was most heartily and thor- 
oughly in favor of carrying the war forward, and which 
would cooperate most effectually with the national adminis- 
tration for that purpose. 1 Following the example of the 
Democratic convention, a motion to print 200,000 copies 
of Tremain's speech, of which 50,000 should be in German, 
was carried. 

1 Tribune, Oct. 1, contains the speech in full. 



224 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [424 

The permanent organization was then effected with Henry 
J. Raymond as president. His speech on taking the chair, 
like that of the temporary chairman, ex-Judge Johnson, 
was an argument designed to prove that the Democratic 
organization of New York was disloyal, and a plea to the 
convention to avert by wise action the attempt " to tear this 
State away from the side of the Government." " Treason," 
said Raymond, 

lurks at our doors ... it seeks to clutch the political power 
of this great State, and throw it virtually and practically into 
the scale of the rebellion. I deny that the contest waged 
here at the present moment is a political contest, or that the 
democracy of the State in any just and proper sense of the 
word can be held responsible for it. 1 

After this, William Curtis Noyes, an eminent lawyer of 
New York City, and one of the leading men in the Republi- 
can party of this State, made an address, emphasizing the 
idea that the assemblage was not a party convention. 2 

At the evening session, Noyes read a letter from Morgan 
declining a renomination, and then presented the name of 
General Wadsworth. General Dix and Lyman Tremain 
were also nominated. Fenton, passing through Syracuse 
on the day of the convention, had requested his friends to 
withdraw his name from consideration. 3 The first ballot 
resulted in Wadsworth receiving 234 votes, Dix no, Tre- 
main 34, Dickinson 2; necessary to a choice, 191. Tremain 
thereupon moved that Wadsworth's nomination be made 
unanimous, which motion was carried. 4 The first place 
having gone to a Republican, the second naturally was given 

1 Herald, Sept. 25. 2 Ibid. 

8 Tribune, Sept. 25. 

* Tribune, Sept. 25. The Herald, Sept. 25, gives Tremain's vote as 33. 



425] THE REVIVAL OF PARTY POLITICS 2 2$ 

to a War Democrat. Tremain was accordingly named for 
lieutenant-governor by acclamation. 1 This was a further 
blow to Thurlow Weed, since neither of the two principal 
nominees came from that wing of the party which was com- 
posed mainly of former Whigs, despite the fact that several 
names of men of such antecedents were put forth by Weed. 2 
The rest of the ticket having been settled, Parke God- 
win, a writer of note and one of the editors of the New 
York Post, reported the platform. This document urged the 
most vigorous prosecution of the war, hailed with pro- 
found satisfaction the President's preliminary emancipation 
proclamation, expressed gratitude to the army and navy, 
promised to labor for the relief of their distresses, and 
favored an immediate enrolment, arming, and disciplining 
of the state militia. 3 Raymond closed the convention with 
congratulatory remarks, yet ominously reminded his audi- 
tors that the victory was not to be won easily. 4 The new 
state committee contained a majority of anti-Weed men. 5 

1 Herald, Sept. 25. 

2 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 425 ; Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 9, 15. 

3 Herald, Sept. 25. 4 Ibid. 

5 The committee consisted of James Kelly, Isaac Sherman, Abram 
Wakeman, Chas. Jones, J. C. Ferguson, R. C. Mc.Cormick, Hamilton 
Harris, Chas. R. Richards, Henry R. Low, E. M. Merriam, Edward 
Dodd, Henry Churchill, P. V. Rogers, Frank Hiscock, M. S. Cushman, 
N. S. Lincoln, Wm. Gleason, Frederick Julian, D. D. S. Brown, Jas. 
C. Jackson, Isaac Fuller, Walter L. Sessions, Ben Field, and Wilkes 
Angel. The statement that the majority of these were anti-Weed men 
is based upon the following: Argus, Sept. 26, Oct. 6; Albany Evening 
Journal, Nov. 10, which said : " When that Committee [*. e. the state 
committee] met to organize, a majority, as was designed, were found 
to be in sympathy with those who were disposed to carry the State 
without the cooperation of Governor Morgan, William M. Evarts, 
Simeon Draper, the Evening Journal, etc., etc." ; Barnes' Memoir of 
Weed, p. 425, which says : " So as to drive the nail home, the convention 
concluded its labors by appointing a state committee from which 



226 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL IV AR [ 42 6 

Seventeen of the twenty-four were new members. 1 Simeon 
Draper was succeeded as chairman by a radical, state Sen- 
ator Low. Later, the party headquarters were removed 
from Albany to New York City. 2 As between the two 
wings of the party, the labors of the convention, both as to 
platform and as to candidates, resulted in a complete vic- 
tory for the Greeley faction and a correspondingly severe 
defeat for Weed and conservative Republicans. Weed, 
however, was to be avenged, if not by his own power, at 
least by the course of events. At the time, however, he came 
out heartily for the ticket ; 3 and right through the cam- 
paign his paper showed not a sign of treachery. 

'Weed men' were caiefully excluded." This is an exaggeration, 
since Sherman, Harris, Wakeman, and Jones at least were Weed men. 
Kelly later was certainly a Weed follower, though Barnes' Memoir 
of Weed, p. 425 records how Weed was snubbed by Kelly in 1862. 

1 Cf. list of those appointed by the convention of 1862 (as given 
above) with the names of the Republican State Committee appointed in 
1861 (Appended to call for convention, Albany Evening Journal, 
July 24, 1862). 

2 Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 8, Dec. 9; Barnes' Memoir of Weed, 
P- 425- 

8 Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 25. After the conventions had met, 
Dix was nominated as an independent candidate by a New York City 
assemblage calling itself the Federal Union party {Herald, Oct. 19). 
The General, however, declined to run (Herald, Oct. 25). 



CHAPTER VIII 
The Triumph of the Opposition 

Some idea of the arguments advanced during the cam- 
paign in New York has already been given in discussing the 
legislative address, the rise of party spirit during the sum- 
mer, and the proceedings of the conventions. Nevertheless, 
an orderly consideration of the issues in this State may be 
thought justifiable, even though they were not, perhaps, 
very different here from what they were elsewhere. For 
New York was one of the principal regions where anti- 
administration strength developed. Its political history at 
this period merits consideration not only because it was typi- 
cal but also because the State was a source of Democratic 
opposition through the North. 

The importance of the election was dwelt upon by both 
sides, and especially by the Republican-Unionists. Thus 
Wadsworth said : " . . . it is my deliberate and solemn con- 
viction, that here in this city of New York, more even than 
on the Shenandoah or in the valleys of Kentucky, is the 
battle field to be fought, which is to preserve our liberties 
and perpetuate our country." * Tremain rather exaggerated 
when he declared that the choice of Seymour would mean 
that the people of New York were prepared to submit to the 
disintegration of the Union. 2 A very common assertion was 
that the election of Seymour would cause the rebels to re- 
joice. David Dudley Field, in a speech at Geneva, said: 

1 Herald, Oct. 31. 2 Tribune, Nov. 1. 

427] 227 



22 8 NE W YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 42 8 

" The election is to have a significance far beyond the choice 
between the candidates. It is a solemn expression of the 
opinion of the people respecting public affairs in this most 
dreadful exigency . . . and that expression will have im- 
mense influence upon the future of the Rebellion." x George 
Bancroft, then a resident of the metropolis and a War Demo- 
crat, wrote: " The voice of the State of New York as pro- 
nounced in the elections, will ring through the civilized 
world. Shall we not do our part to make that voice clear 
for the Union?" 2 

Practically the only issues discussed were national ones 
arising out of or relating to the war. The main fire of 
Republican-Unionist speakers was directed toward showing 
that the Democratic organization in this State was disloyal, 
or at least likely, if successful, to hamper or embarrass the 
national administration in the prosecution of the war, and 
that Wadsworth's election would strengthen the general 
government because he would act in harmony with it. At a 
speech in Brooklyn, Cassius M. Clay said, "... the hang- 
ing of such men as Seymour and Wood would have saved 
thousands of honest lives." 3 A Republican ward meeting, 
at which Dana and Raymond were present, resolved that 
every vote given for Horatio Seymour was a vote for trea- 
son; and one of the speakers called Seymour " the traitor's 
candidate." 4 William Curtis Noyes said that when the 
Democratic party had been shattered at Charleston into 
fragments, the latter had formed into three groups, which 

1 Tribune, Oct. 23. ' 

2 Tribune, Oct. 21. That these expressions were not mere election 
talk is indicated by the sentiment in a private letter of William Cullen 
Bryant to Lincoln, stating that the " election of Seymour as Governor 
of the State of New York would be a public calamity" (Godwin's 
Bryant, p. ii, 176). 

3 Herald, Oct. 9. * Ibid. 



429] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 229 

he characterized as good, worse, and worst. The good were 
those Democrats who had joined the Union party move- 
ment, the worst were the rebels. " The worse are those," 
he went on, 

who . . . were cold, indifferent, doubting of success, taking no 
share in the patriotic excitement which prevailed a year ago 
last April, . . . recently crystallizing into a party opposed to 
the Administration — opposed to the war in substance. . . . 
Not indeed that they are all traitors. . . . But I say they are 
in sympathy with them ; that they are willing to submit to 
their demands. . . . The designs of the leaders are base, dis- 
loyal. . . . * 

Raymond declared that Seymour's election would give aid 
and comfort to the enemy, and he desired " to see the sym- 
pathizers with treason and rebellion left where the War of 
18 1 2 left the Federalists, and where the Revolution left the 
Tories." 2 Henry B. Stanton said: 

Disguise it as you will, ... it is the government and its sup- 
porters on the one side^, and the Rebels and their sympa- 
thizers on the other . . . whatever they may intend, the scope 
and drift of the policy maintained by Horatio Seymour and 
Fernando Wood is to give aid and comfort to the Rebels and 
to cripple the Administration in a vigorous prosecution of 
the war. 3 

Said the Tribune: 

Every voter in this State whose sympathies are . . . [with 

1 Herald, Oct. 9. 

2 Tribune, Oct. 7 ; similar sentiments were expressed by Raymond at 
Syracuse (Tribune, Oct. 21) and at Malone (Tribune, Oct. 25). 

8 Tribune, Oct. 9. 



230 MEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [430 

the] Slaveholders' Rebellion is a supporter of Seymour. 
Every voter that asserts that the Southern Rebellion was pro- 
voked and all but justified by Northern Aggression is for 
Seymour. . . . Every voter who, while more or less openly 
discouraging volunteering, has proclaimed the impracticabil- 
ity of drafting men to fight in this war, is for Seymour. 1 

Dickinson contrasted Wadsworth's course with Sey- 
mour's. The former gave his three sons to the cause, and 
himself volunteered in any capacity. " About the same 
time," Dickinson continued, Seymour 

left his family, . . . but not for the seat of the war. He 
hied himself away ... in the opposite direction, and for 
nearly a half a year hid himself among the lakes and rivers 
and romantic woodlands and inland towns of Wisconsin, and 
his tongue was . . . silent on the subject of denouncing the 
Rebellion. . . . There we may suppose he basked and balanced 
and watched and waited and turned and twisted until Autumn, 
when a small knot of defunct, defeated, desperate and despic- 
able politicians . . . came to his relief. 2 

Seymour's past utterances were used against him by his op- 
ponents. They quoted from the address made by him at 
the Albany convention of January, 1861, as well as from 
his speeches made during the campaign of that year. They 
reminded him that he had then said : " If it is true that 
slavery must be abolished to save this Union, then the 

1 Tribune, Oct. 8. 'The Albany Evening Journal contained similar 
editorials and editorial paragraphs, e. g, Oct. 9, 25. 

2 Herald, Oct. 9. Seymour was also accused of having failed to 
contribute toward raising and equipping volunteers {Tribune, Oct. 8) ; 
though he had a military education, it was said, he had not like Wads- 
worth offered his services to the government (William Curtis Noyes' 
speech, Tribune, Nov. 4). 



43 1 ] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 23 1 

people of the South should be allowed to withdraw them- 
selves from that government which cannot give them the 
protection guaranteed by its terms." x Tremain affirmed 
that after the war had broken out Seymour had publicly 
spoken at Utica against the right of coercion ; and that upon 
returning to Albany, he had declared that the Western 
states would never pay the great war debt and that they were 
considering a Southern proposition of free navigation of 
the Mississippi on condition of neutrality. 2 

Seymour's assertions that he was loyal and that he fav- 
ored the war were, Republican-Unionists averred, but sham 
protestations or at best " impelled by the exigencies of the 
candidate, not by the feelings of the man." 3 He was called 
a trickster, 4 and his party a " bogus war party." 5 Greeley, 
in a characteristic editorial entitled " Brand the Deceivers," 
opened with this vigorous denunciation of the Democrats: 
" They lie — consciously, wickedly lie, — who tell you that to 
support Seymour, Wood and Co., is the true way to invig- 
orate the prosecution of the war . . . " 6 Dickinson said : 
" This party with its proposition of peace having been ex- 
posed, abashed and ingloriously overthrown last year, has 
covered its framework this year with a veneering of a differ- 
ent shade, but quite too flimsy to deceive." 7 David Dudley 
Field declared : " General Wadsworth believes that the only 
road to peace leads through war — fierce, resolute, unflinch- 
ing war . . . Mr. Seymour . . . would have half war and 
half accommodation. He is for peace on any terms, so that 

^remain at Brooklyn (Tribune, Nov. 1) ; Tribune editorial, Oct. 
16; Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 27; Dickinson at New York City 
{Tribune, Oct. 9). 

2 Herald, Oct. 31. 8 Tribune, Oct. 8. 

4 Tribune, Oct. 15. 5 Ibid. 

6 Tribune, Oct. 30. 7 Herald, Oct. 9. 



232 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [432 

he and his party may have the power." * In this connection, 
some of the Republican-Unionists asserted that if Seymour 
was elected, not another New York regiment would leave 
for the war and that no more soldiers would be enlisted or 
drafted in this State to recruit the forces already raised by 
it. 2 David Dudley Field said : " Mr. Seymour and his sup- 
porters do not propose to send more troops into the field. 
They have done little towards the last two levies." 3 Lyman 
Tremain prophesied that Seymour's election would bring 
the power of the State into collision with the national gov- 
ernment. 4 

As a matter of fact, however, Copperheadism was very 
weak at that time in New York State. The great mass 
of the voters were, in 1862 at least, heartily in favor of sup- 
porting the war. During the summer of that year there 
was a wave of meetings through the State, the purpose 
of which was to encourage enlistments, raise money to pay 
bounties, and expiess determination to uphold the national 
administration in a vigorous prosecution of the war. Among 
the speakers on these occasions, the committeemen ap- 
pointed in each congressional district to aid the movement, 
and those who in other ways engaged in this labor, were the 
following prominent Democrats who refused to give up their 
party: Horatio Seymour, Francis Kernan, William Kelly, 
Martin Kalbfleisch, Gilbert Dean, Henry C. Murphy, 
Emanuel B. Hart, Sanford E. Church, Dean Richmond, 
Richard O'Gorman, Erastus Corning, and John Ganson. 5 
In January, 1863, the Albany Evening Journal said that it 

1 Tribune, Oct. 3. 2 E. g. Tribune, Oct. 30. 

3 Tribune, Oct. 27; also Field's speech at New York City (Tribune, 
Oct. 3) for the same accusation. 

4 Herald, Oct. 31. 

5 Argus, Oct. 20, 1863, confirmed in part by various notices in the 
Herald and Tribune during the summer of 1862. 



433] THB TRIUMPH 0F THE OPPOSITION 233 

was misinformed if Corning as a member of the committee 
of ways and means of the House of Representatives had 
not " gone cheerfully and heartily with the Republican ma- 
jority, in favor of every Administration measure designed 
to carry on the War with energy and vigor;" while Rich- 
mond, this same paper said, had freely given his services 
and money in organizing and equipping troops. 1 That 
which gave some foundation to the accusations of the Re- 
publican-Unionists was the disloyal utterances of such 
Democrats as the two Woods, the vagueness of the plans of 
the Democrats for attaining peace, 2 and the very fact that 
they persisted in maintaining a partisan opposition in the 
midst of so great a contest, when parties meant division at 
the North and a consequent weakening of the efforts to 
suppress the rebellion. 

This last point was fully brought out by Republican- 
Unionists during the campaign of 1862. They made much 
of the necessity of laying aside party and of the lack of 
patriotism in not doing so. Here the accusers seem to have 
had more justice on their side, from the standpoint of the 
country's needs if not from the mere political point of view. 
Dickinson and Tremain, both for many years leaders in the 
Democratic organization, were especially fitted to press home 
this charge, and they did so. Dickinson was a man of elo- 
quence, and it must have been thrilling to hear this white- 
haired statesman, who had received at the hands of the 
Democracy the lieutenant-governorship and the United 
States senatorship, and who had been prominently men- 
tioned in its councils for the presidential nomination, de- 
nounce his former associates for keeping up party spirit in 
such a crisis. In one speech he said : 

1 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 15, 1863. 

2 John Van Buren in particular kept on advocating some very pecu- 
liar views on the subject of a peace convention. 



234 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [434 

These two men [Wadsworth and Seymour] have been placed 
in nomination by opposing organizations . . . the one by the 
loyal masses acting as a Union organization, regardless and 
independent of former political opinion, . . . the other brought 
forward by political guerrillas, who have crawled from be- 
neath the popular avalanche of last year to repeat their efforts 
at imposition under new and improved disguises — the peace 
party patriots of 1861, the apologists of rebellion and the 
villifiers of the administration. . . . All loyal men are alike 
interested in putting down the rebellion, . . . and why should 
they not act together? The Republican party ... in theory 
and practice lays aside for the occasion, as it did last year, its 
distinctive action as a party, and its members unite in com- 
mon with all loyal Democrats, and others who are so disposed, 
upon a platform inculcating no party ends. ... I defy and 
scorn all ringing of party gongs to gather the hungry and 
alarm the timid. 1 

The Democrats replied that it was the Republicans who 
refused to abandon their political organization and asserted 
that the course of the administration and its subordinates 
had been from the very beginning proscriptive of non-Re- 
publicans. 2 Seymour, as in the convention, defended the 
propriety of maintaining at such a juncture an opposition. 
Its retention, he declared, was justified by the radical char- 
acter of the ticket nominated at Syracuse. 3 John B. Haskin, 
once an anti-Lecompton member of Congress from New 
York, charged that the Syracuse convention was nothing 
but a radical Republican affair, controlled by Greeley and 
his friends; and he appealed to the Union Democrats who 

1 Herald, Oct. 9. See also another War Democrat's utterance on 
the same subject — General John Cochrane at Olean {Tribune, Oct. 30). 

2 Argus, Sept. 11; Rochester Daily Union, quoted by the Argus, 
Sept. 18. 

3 Herald, Oct. 23. 



435] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 235 

had a year ago supported the ticket headed by Dickinson, to 
leave the Republican party. " It has now thrown off the 
cloak," he said. " It is the pure abolition party of the 
country . . . The Union movement in this State has been 
turned by the abolition contractors into a pure abolition 
movement." x 

The charges of the Republican-Unionists evidently told 
and put the Democrats on the defensive. Seymour de- 
voted quite some attention to refuting such accusations. He 
affirmed that he was earnestly for the war. At the great 
Cooper Institute ratification meeting on October 13th, he 
asked why " those who supported their country's cause were 
branded as traitors?" He then defended his own record, 
saying that " he had addressed more meetings in support of 
the war than he would address in support of the ticket on 
which his name stood." The allegation that he had not 
given pecuniary aid to the war, he pronounced false. He 
asserted that the President would not be embarrassed if the 
Democrats won in New York. 2 In Brooklyn Seymour said: 

I recognize the fact now that it is the duty of every man who 
would stand by its [i. e. the country's] institutions, to see 
that the whole measure of his influence and all the weight of 
his power are thrown in that battlefield on the side of the flag 
of our Union; 

and he referred to his efforts to " invoke our young men to 
rally around the standard of our country." Again he de- 
clared : " We say then to this government, you have our 
firm reliance, our confidence, our unconditional loyalty 
... ;" and he maintained that this had ever been the posi- 

1 Herald, Oct. 31. 

8 Herald, Oct. 14. With regard to this speech, see Reminiscences of 
Richard Lathers, p. 180. 



236 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [436 

tion of the Democrats, " not now alone, . . . [but] one 
year ago, when many of our Republican friends were de- 
nouncing the Administration." Had the loyalty of the 
Republicans been unconditional, he asked. And he con- 
cluded with this noble sentiment : 

Now let me say this to the higher law men of the North, and 
to the higher law men of the South, and to the whole world 
. . . that this Union never shall be severed, no, never. Would 
that my voice could be heard through every Southern State, 
and I would tell them their mistake. 1 

The Democrats replied to their opponents by assailing the 
alleged revolutionary proceedings of the Republicans, claim- 
ing that the latter were the real adversaries of the President. 
The New York Herald expressed a common opinion when 
it said : 

The conservatives are not opposed to the Administration so 
long as the Administration is not opposed to the constitu- 
tion. On the contrary, the conservatives have supported the 
Administration and the constitution by liberal supplies of men 
and money. The abolitionists are opposed to the Administra- 
tion; for they have refused to enlist. ... As Greeley con- 
fesses, the abolitionists have never yet smelt powder during 
the war. . . . 2 

Seymour from the platform censured as pernicious prac- 
tices the acts of insubordinate radical generals, the fusion of 
the spheres of the three governmental departments, the Al- 
toona convention of governors, and the work of the National 

1 Herald, Oct. 23. Cf. Tilden's Letters, i, p. 166. 

2 Herald, Nov. 4 ; similar editorial, entitled " Who are the Traitors ?" 
in the Argus, Sept. 20; another entitled "Abolition Disloyalty," Argus, 
Sept. 15 ; another, "Abolition Disorganization," Argus, Sept. 22. 



437] THE TRIUMPH 0F THE OPPOSITION 237 

War Committee of New York City, which he pronounced 
" one of the most dangerous and revolutionary features of 
the day." 1 In another speech, Seymour said : 

Who among the journalists .... endeavored to force their 
views and policy upon the government, without respect to the 
embarrassments they might occasion? . . . the men who de- 
nounce you and me as being untrue to the institutions of the 
country ... I charge against them . . . that they have been 
foremost in every measure calculated to embarrass the gov- 
ernment, and to hinder and retard the successful prosecution 
of the war. . . . 2 

The Albany Argus printed daily two or three columns of 
quotations from the Tribune, the Times, and the Post 
attacking the administration. 3 Speaking of the " Little 
Villain " Raymond, the Argus said : " Behold the record of 
treason to the government, spiced by abuse of President 
Lincoln, slanders of our armies, and assaults upon our gen- 
erals, furnished by his own pen." Then followed two 
columns of extracts from the Times labeled thus : " Ray- 
mond Predicts and Justifies a Usurpation," " Raymond Dis- 
courages Enlistments," " Raymond Assails the Government 
as Imbecile," " Raymond Demands the Removal of Mc- 
Clellan," " Raymond Calls for a Change of Generals, 
Cabinet and President," etc. 4 The effect of these mutual 
recriminations was to add bitterness to the campaign. Each 
side arrogated to itself the merit of patriotism and de- 
nounced the other as disloyal. Threats were made that 

1 Herald, Oct. 14. For a similar utterance by James T. Brady, see 
Herald, Oct. 28. The Argus too denounced the Altoona meeting and 
the New York War Committee (Argus, Sept. 15, 20, 26). 

2 Herald, Oct. 23. 

3 Argus, Oct. 23 to 31 inclusive. 
* Argus, Oct. 21. 



238 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [4.38 

Republicans would be assaulted in the streets unless they 
ceased from calling Seymour's followers traitors. 1 

Abolition and the President's proclamation 2 naturally oc- 
cupied a large share of attention during the campaign. The 
Republicans showed no hesitation in defending Lincoln's 
course — not even in New York City and Brooklyn where it 
might have been expected to prove unpopular ; though Weed, 
after the election, asserted that he had endeavored to pre- 
vent the bringing of Wadsworth to New York City to 
speak there, because it would emphasize too much the anti- 
slavery issue. Wadsworth's views and past actions stamped 
him as preeminently an abolition candidate. Immediately 
after his nomination he was serenaded at Washington and 
his remarks on this occasion were published in the New 
York papers. He said : 

It would be criminal folly in the government if it had over- 
looked one great element of Southern society which may be, 
and will be, as we use it, an element of strength or weakness — 
to have overlooked . . . that we are fighting against an aris- 
tocracy supported by slavery; and it would have been worse 
than folly to suppose that we could suppress the Rebellion 
and yet save that aristocracy. . . . Gentlemen, secession and 
war . . . have changed our relation to that institution which 
is the cause and source of the war. . . . 8 

In his letter of acceptance, Wadsworth declared that he en- 
tirely approved of the Emancipation Proclamation, and com- 
mended it to the voters of New York as an effectual, speedy, 
and humane way of subduing the rebellion. He asserted 

1 These threats are referred to in Tribune editorials of Oct. 1 and 
24, and in a Herald editorial of Oct. 14. 

2 This was the preliminary proclamation of September, 1862. 

3 Herald, Sept. 28. 



439] THE TRI UMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 239 

that the war had proved that the fears of black insurrec- 
tions were without foundation, and that emancipation once 
accomplished, the North would be relieved from any danger 
of a great influx of African laborers to compete with the 
whites, while the negro population already in the North 
would " drift to the South where it will find a congenial 
climate and vast tracts of land . . . " 1 The resolutions 
and speakers at the Republican-Unionist meetings generally 
endorsed the proclamation on the grounds of expediency and 
necessity, maintained the constitutionality of the measure, 
denounced slavery as the force upholding the rebellion, and 
affirmed that, aside from these considerations, it was the 
duty of every loyal citizen to sustain the government in the 
course which it had decided to adopt. Even the War Demo- 
crats defended the proclamation as a military necessity. 
Dickinson, who had upheld Southern rights for so many 
years, now said that " he was no political abolitionist, but 
in the exercise of the war power, he was for taking that 
thing [i. e. slavery] out by the roots." 2 

The adherents of Seymour on the other hand denounced 
the Emancipation Proclamation as unconstitutional, as 
threatening white labor at the North, as likely to lead to a 
servile war, as consolidating Southern sentiment against the 
Union while at the same time dividing the North, and as de- 
priving loyal innocent men of their property for the crimes 
of the guilty. 3 Richard O'Gorman, a prominent New 
York City Democrat, declared that the proclamation was a 
" barbarous, disgraceful, hideous violation of the morality 

1 Printed in the Herald, Oct. 6. 

2 Herald, Oct. 25. General John Cochrane's attitude was similar 
(see his speech at Olean, Tribune, Nov. 1). 

3 E. g. Seymour's speech, Herald, Oct. 14 ; resolutions of Brooklyn 
meeting, Tribune, Oct. 24. 



240 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 44 q 

of Christendom," a sentiment which was greeted with great 
cheering. 1 The Democrats liked to quote the President's re- 
ply to a Chicago delegation in September, 1862, wherein he 
declared that an emancipation proclamation " must be neces- 
sarily inoperative " and that " no possible good can result 
from such a proclamation." 2 In this connection, it was 
very common to quote the Crittenden resolution as to the 
purpose of the war. 3 

Another issue emphasized during the campaign in New 
York was that of the arbitrary acts of the administration. 
Here the Republican-Unionists were on the defensive. An 
especially bitter assault on the government was that con- 
tained in a speech of Richard O'Gorman, in which he said : 

Two years ago we were governed according to the terms of a 
written constitution, by which we fondly thought freedom of 
person, of speech, of the press, were forever guaranteed, for- 
ever secured. . . . To-day, the personal liberty of every one 
of us here in this city . . . depends, not on the constitution 
or the law, but on the good pleasure of one man and his dele- 
gates. By sudden, secret, and lawless arrests, the exercise of 
free criticism of the conduct of public affairs has been pun- 
ished, and as far as possible suppressed. While the adherents 
of one political party seem to revel in unlimited license, all 
others are condemned to silence, or if they speak at all, with 
" bated breath and whispering humbleness." . . . While one 
set of men can freely, boldly, insolently criticise and threaten 
the government, express their contempt for its constitution, 

1 Herald, Oct. 9. > 

2 Brooklyn meeting ( Tribune, Oct. 24) ; New York City meeting 
(Herald, Oct. 14) ; Haskin at Tarrytown meeting (Herald, Oct. 31) ; 
"Abraham Lincoln's View of the President's Proclamation " — Argus, 
Sept. 27. 

3 For this resolution, see Rhodes, History of the United States, 
iii, p. 464. 



44!] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 241 

make and unmake generals, plan campaigns, alter policy, knock 
down, appoint, supersede, — to all others is allotted the part of 
passive obedience; on their lips, remonstrance is disloyalty. 1 

Seymour condemned the suspension of the writ of habeas 
corpus by the President, and attacked the doctrine that free- 
dom of speech in the loyal states was to be restrained be- 
cause there were disloyal states in the South. 2 Another 
Democratic speaker asserted that the people of Vienna and 
St. Petersburg were free, while the Americans were slaves. 3 
General Wadsworth was accused of participating in these 
arbitrary actions by the apprehension of the editors and pro- 
prietors of two Harrisburg (Pennsylvania) papers. 4 

Dickinson gave what now appears the most sensible and 
patriotic reply to this line of attack. He said : 

This rebellion cannot well be sued by summons and complaint ; 
nor brought to trial before a justice of the peace or referees 
under the code, nor silenced by a grand jury. . . . Among the 
first rights and privileges and highest and holiest duties and 
obligations of tlte government is the preservation of its own 
existence. A war of rebellion is a fearful and alarming real- 
ity, and is neither to be run away from nor quieted by reciting 
boarding-school homilies. . . . The course of the President in 
arresting spies and the apologists of rebellion — in suppressing 
treasonable presses — in suspending the writ of habeas corpus 
.... entitles him to the admiration and thanks of every good 
citizen. Let assassins whet their knives — let spies and traitors 
and pimps and informers scowl and gibber and whisper dis- 
content because the " freedom of speech " is abridged — let con- 
spiracy and treason plot at their infernal conferences — let poli- 
ticians scheme and elongate and contract their gum-elastic 

1 Herald, Oct. 9. 2 Herald, Oct. 14. 

3 Herald, Oct. 29. *■ Argus, Oct. 28. 



242 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [442 

platforms to suit emergencies, and when all this has been done 
the action of the President in these measures, though probably 
not free from mistakes and errors, will be approved by honest 
men and in the sight of Heaven, and will, when rebellion shall 
only be remembered for the blood it has shed and the wrongs 
it has perpetrated, " stand the test of talents and of time." * 

The Democrats also assailed their opponents because of 
the faults of the administration at Washington and its al- 
leged corruption. Nothing was said about the state gov- 
ernment, because since the shoddy frauds at the opening of 
the war, nothing had come to light which would have served 
as grounds for an attack in that quarter. Over and over 
again, taking their cue from Seymour's speech in the state 
convention, the Democratic orators declared that the Re- 
publicans were not able to manage successfully the na- 
tional government. Van Buren said : 

It is our purpose to overthrow this Republican party and the 
political sharks that follow in their [sic] wake, to devour what 
they throw overboard ... it is my deliberate judgment that 
the most contemptible failure in the shape of government is the 
government of the republican States of North America. . . . 
We propose to stop stealing for ninety days (laughter) and 
have the money raised by taxation applied to pay the soldiers, 
to feed and clothe them. . . . 2 

Seymour maintained that it was vain to send troops to the 
field while there was lacking an honest administration to 
sustain them there in the necessities of life. " I tell you," he 
said, "that the government which conceals frauds committed 

1 Herald, Oct. 9. 

2 Herald, Oct. 14. In another speech, Van Buren asserted that the 
government was the most corrupt one on the face of the earth 
(Herald, Oct. 23). 



443] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 243 

against itself, and which considers it unpatriotic to leave 
them bare is on the road to destruction." And he cited the 
reports of various congressional committees which had re- 
vealed the existence of corruption. 1 Fernando Wood de- 
clared that the administration had been " imbecile, venal, 
and corrupt," else it would have suppressed the rebellion 
long ago. He accused the Republicans either of continuing 
the war for their own purposes or of lacking " the heart 
or the brains to succeed " in making peace. " Be they weak 
or be they wicked," he went on, 

they cannot succeed. I am going to Washington, and when I 
reach there I will go to the President of the United States, in 
my sovereign capacity as your representative, ... I will tell 
him that without we have a change of measures, that so help 
me God ! we will have a change of men. 2 

In reply to the charge of corruption, the Republican- 
Unionists acknowledged its presence but pleaded in ex- 
tenuation the circumstances. " The service couldn't wait," 
said the Tribune. " Sharpers ... of course, took advan- 
tage of this . . . Congress (Republican all over) at once 
went after these robbers with a sharp stick." And it went 
on to argue that men occupying offices where dishonesty had 
been brought to light, e. g. the Secretary of War, the Com- 
missary-General, and the Quartermaster-General, were not 
Republicans. 3 Grant that the administration has made mis- 
takes, said the Albany Evening Journal, should support be 
therefore refused ? " It is doing its best. ... It is setting 
to work with such light as it has to guide its footsteps to sub- 
due the insurgent States. . . . And it needs to have its 

1 Herald, Oct. 23. 2 Tribune, Oct. 25. 

8 Tribune, Oct. 15, 24. 



244 NEW Y0RK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [444 

hands sustained all the more because, in some respects, it 
has faltered and failed." 1 Moreover, Unionists argued 
that the President must hold office until March 4th, 1865, 
and that therefore, if the country was to be saved, it must be 
by his administration. 2 The Tribune, drawing- the logical 
conclusion from this consideration and such speeches as 
Wood's, came out with an editorial entitled "A Conspiracy 
to Overthrow the Government," in which it said : "This sud- 
den, bold and confident rush for power in this State . . . 
is nothing but a conspiracy to overthrow the Federal Gov- 
ernment with the help of Rebel arms . . . The votes cast 
for Seymour may add a Revolution in the North to our 
war in the South." It branded Fernando Wood as Catiline, 
and elsewhere said : " We need not dwell upon the details 
of the terror. . . . There will be blood enough ... to 
satisfy the sanguinary thirst even of old Marat . . . " 3 It 
recalled the dreadful days when, during the Nenv York City 
police riots, Mayor Wood with eight hundred stalwart men 
barricaded the City Hall and set at defiance the law until 
overawed by the Seventh Regiment. 

The Democrats when criticising the administration 
claimed that their party could end the war. John Van 
Buren's plan, repeatedly advocated by him during the cam- 
paign, was to capture Richmond, call a convention and in- 
vite the Southerners to enter it under the constitution as it 
was ; and if they refused, to let them go in peace. 4 Seymour 
was more cautious, even if more vague. He expressed his 

1 Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 25 ; similar arguments, Tremain at 
Brooklyn (Tribune, Nov. 1) and Wadsworth at New York City 
(Herald, Oct. 31). 

2 Tribune, Oct. 3; Wadsworth's speech in New York City (Herald, 
Oct. 31). 

3 Tribune, Oct. 30. 

* Herald, Oct. 14; Argus, Oct. 28. 



445] THB TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 245 

program thus : " We propose to bring this war to a speedy 
and successful conclusion because, my friends, we have a 
definite and determinate object, and that is, to restore the 
Union as it was." x How this was to be done, Seymour did 
not say. James T. Brady, hiding the indefiniteness of his 
scheme behind metaphor, said : 

So if we leave the Republican party to conduct these sisters of 
ours — erring, if you please — back into our ranks, if it looks 
back upon them in the hour of republican triumph, each of 
these sisters will disappear like Eurydice. We do not propose 
that any such result shall occur. We propose that the Demo- 
cratic party shall be the Orpheus of this era, and that we shall 
imitate his example by employing the harmonious measures 
which we have the power to exert so as to move every stone 
of our fabric back into its own position. . . . 2 

These men were not disloyal. They simply imagined that 
the old party ties exercised as potent a spell over the South- 
erners as over themselves. Van Buren and Brady were 
disillusioned in the following year. 

Immediately after the Union State Convention, an Argus 
editorial referring to Wadsworth said : " We mistake the 
temper of the people of this State, if they will not eagerly 
seize the first opportunity to punish one of the assassins of 
McClellan." 3 The Buffalo Courier declared that the issue 
was fairly presented by the nomination of Wadsworth, an 
" abolitionist and special calumniator of McClellan." 4 John 
Van Buren was particularly severe in his criticism of 

1 Herald, Oct. 23. 

2 Herald, Oct. 28. Same idea expressed less poetically by O'Gorman 
{Herald, Oct. 9), and by Wood {Tribune, Oct. 25). 

3 Argus, Sept. 26; similar editorials, Sept. 29, 30, Oct. 15, 16, 22, 28, 
Nov. 4. 

4 Quoted by the Argus, Sept. 27. 



246 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 44 6 

Wadsworth as the enemy of McClellan. He and other 
Democrats persistently reiterated the charge, asserted that 
Wadsworth had been guilty of gross insubordination to 
his commander, and harped on the idea of rank injustice 
to a military hero because of the latter's Democratic 
views and connections. Van Buren denounced Wads- 
worth as a militia major who had never been on the 
battle-field except once as an aid-de-camp. " He is an 
open, notorious, bitter enemy of George B. McClellan 
. . . Wadsworth is his [McClellan's] open, malignant, 
bitter persecutor, ... It is our purpose to stand by Mr. 
Lincoln so far as he will let us, and to stand by General 
McClellan whether he will let us or not." * Brady said 
that Fremont was the " darling of a certain portion of the 
Republican party, at the same time that in the most dastardly 
and assassin-like manner they sought to injure that gallant 
young man McClellan." 2 Haskin affirmed that " when- 
ever a Democratic general wins a victory, they [the admin- 
istration] are afraid he will get up further on the ladder 
of fame and they pull him down," and he declared that to 
his certain knowledge, Wadsworth had taken every occasion 
to detract from the merit of McClellan. 3 The Unionists 
apparently felt this charge, for they found it advisable dur- 
ing the course of the campaign to deny that their candidate 
was unfriendly to McClellan and to aver that Wadsworth 
had simply been anxious for the Union army to make a for- 
ward movement during the preceding winter when Mc- 
Clellan persisted in ^remaining inactive. 4 

1 Herald, Oct. 14. 2 Herald, Oct. 28. 3 Herald, Oct. 31. 

4 £. g. H. B. Stanton at Brooklyn {Tribune, Oct. 8) ; W. C. Noyes 
at New York City {Tribune, Nov. 4) ; letter of Gen. Benjamin Welch 
{Tribune, Oct. 25) ; Tribune, Nov. I, referring to the letter of United 
States Senator Harris on the subject, published in the Albany 
Statesman ; Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 6 ; denial of a similar 
charge by the Times, Oct. 21, 25, and by the Evening Post, Oct. 21. 



44 7 ] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 247 

Of course, the Democrats made much of standing for the 
constitution and of representing the great conservative 
masses. Then, too, something, though compared to the 
following years not much, was said against heavy taxes, de- 
preciated currency, and the alleged failure of Chase's finan- 
cial policy. 1 

Wadsworth, being military governor of Washington, 
made but two speeches in New York during the campaign. 
Just before the election, he came to New York City, and 
addressed two large meetings at Cooper Institute, the latter 
being a gathering of German citizens. Weed is said to have 
urged Wadsworth to avoid the slavery question, but Wads- 
worth disregarded the advice. This, according to Weed, 
lost him the election. 2 Seymour, accompanied by John Van 
Buren, was very active, touring the State from one end to 
the other. They were the most prominent speakers on the 
Democratic side during the contest. Others of note were 
Richard O'Gorman, James T. Brady, John B. Haskin, 
Amasa J. Parker, and Fernando Wood. On the Repub- 
lican-Unionist side, there was an imposing array, including 
George William Curtis, Horace Greeley, General Cochrane, 
William Allen Butler, H. B. Stanton, Tremain, Noyes, 
Dickinson, Raymond, Alvord, and Field. A feature of the 
Republican-Unionist meetings was the speeches made by 
Southern refugees, ex-slaveholders but Union men. Most 
conspicuous of these was A. J. Hamilton, of Texas, later 
provisional governor of that commonwealth. 

Even the choice of state senators and assemblymen had a 
national significance in 1862, because an anti-administration 

1 E. g. Argus, Oct. 17, 18, 22, 27 ; Seymour at Brooklyn (Herald, Oct. 
23) ; Haskin at Tarrytown (Herald, Oct. 31) ; William D. Murphy at 
Schenectady (Argus, Nov. 1) ; Herald, Oct. 26. 

2 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 425. 



248 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [448 

legislature might refuse to support war measures and because 
a United States senator was to be elected in the ensuing 
year. But second in importance to the gubernatorial con- 
test only were the congressional elections. The Tribune 
advocated the nomination of a War Democrat in every dis- 
trict which had given an anti-Lincoln majority in i860. 1 
This plan was largely carried out, particularly in the Demo- 
cratic strongholds in the southern part of the State. Thus, 
in New York City the Republicans supported War Demo- 
crats for member of Congress in the fourth, fifth, and ninth 
districts. 2 In the eighth, the Union nomination was offered 
to George Bancroft, who was a War Democrat; but he de- 
clined. 8 In the tenth district, the Republican-Unionists 
named Edward Haight, who had been elected as a Democrat 
in i860, but since the outbreak of the war had supported 
the administration. 4 Through a deal between Tammany 
and Mozart, those organizations made a peaceful division 
of the congressional and legislative nominations on the 
Democratic ticket in the metropolis. 5 Accordingly, one 
found there an interesting trio of congressional can- 
didates : the two Woods and James Brooks. The battle 
was waged vigorously against them because of their well 
known Copperhead views. 6 

That the campaign was an acrimonious one has already 
been mentioned. The excitement reached a climax in connec- 
tion with the proposed draft. During the enrolment, a great 
many — 17,000 in New York City alone. 7 — had claimed 
exemption on the ground of being aliens. Some of these 
doubtless had voted in previous years. It was made known, 

1 Tribune, Oct. 2. 2 Tribune, Nov. 3. 

s Tribune, Oct. 21. * Ibid. 

5 Herald, Oct. 7. 6 E. g. Tribune, Nov. 4. 
7 Tribune, Nov. 4. 



449] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 249 

shortly before the election, that in New York City watchers 
of Police Superintendent Kennedy provided with lists of the 
exempted aliens would be at the polls, ready to arrest on a 
charge of perjury or illegal voting any such persons who 
should attempt to cast a ballot. 1 Tammany and Mozart 
probably lost many votes. 2 The Seymour papers set up a 
howl about intimidation, and a handbill signed by promi- 
nent local politicians denounced these very proper measures. 3 
Nevertheless, the election passed off quietly. 

The result was the choice of the entire Democratic state 
ticket by about 10,700 majority. 4 The congressional dele- 
gation and the legislature showed large Democratic gains. 
Fernando Wood, Benjamin Wood, and James Brooks were 
all elected. In the face of the adverse majority of 107,000 
in the previous year, the Democratic victory of 1862 might 
seem like a revolution in the sentiment of the people, and 
was so interpreted by the victors. They pronounced it a 
sweeping condemnation of the administration's anti-slavery 
policy. Such an explanation, however, was probably in- 
correct. There is no evidence that the Union Democratic 
vote became disaffected because of emancipation. Union 
Democrats in the Legislature, in the state convention, and 
on the platform appeared little if any behind the Republicans 
in accepting Lincoln's proclamation, at least as a justifiable 
war measure. While Weed doubted the expediency of the 
President's action, his followers did not endorse his view; 

1 Tribune, Oct. 31, Nov. 4. 

2 The Tribune (Nov. 5) estimated this loss at "several thousand;" 
the New York Express, which supported Seymour, declared that the 
" Democratic majority in this city is 5,000 less than it would have 
been if the Metropolitan Police were a real Police, and not a mere 
Republican Club" (quoted in the Albany Evening Journal, Nov. 7). 

3 Tribune, Nov. 4. 

4 Albany Evening Journal Almanac for 1863. 



250 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [450 

and it does not appear from the speeches at campaign meet- 
ings, from the resolutions of such gatherings, from the pro- 
ceedings of the state convention, or from the press edi- 
torials that the Republicans of New York were at all divided 
on this question. Many in the convention favored Dix's 
nomination, not however because they were opposed to the 
Emancipation Proclamation, but simply, as Greeley said on 
the day following, "because they believed they could thus dis- 
arm the partisan prejudices of thousands," or else, as we 
may add, because of dislike of Greeley himself and of his 
faction. 

Weed was charged with treachery to the ticket. Just 
before the election, he publicly denied this accusation in 
a letter to the editor of the New York Commercial Ad- 
vertiser. He said : 

The " friends of Governor Seward," generally, are cordially 
supporting the Union State ticket. . . . While it is true that I 
urged upon the Union State Convention the nomination of 
General Dix, I have, from the moment General Wadsworth 
was nominated, given him and our whole State ticket my steady 
and earnest support. 1 

Weed tells in his autobiography that, soon after the election, 
he retired from the editorship of the Evening Journal and 
went to his old home, Rochester, intending to purchase a 
farm on the Genesee River on which to pass the remainder 
of his life. " My arrival in Rochester," he wrote, 

was announced in the Republican journal of which I had been 
the first editor, in a paragraph charging me with having treach- 
erously defeated the election of General Wadsworth, ... A 

' Printed in the Tribune. Nov. 4. 



45 1 ] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 25 1 

welcome so different from that which I had anticipated affected 
me so profoundly that a plan of life which I had long fondly 
looked forward to was abandoned. 1 

The truth of the matter will probably never be known, but 
that Weed's disaffected followers might have influenced the 
result is not unlikely. They had been beaten too thoroughly 
in the state convention. 

But this betrayal, if indeed it occurred, is not sufficient to 
account for so great a reversal. James Ford Rhodes, speak- 
ing of the state elections of 1862 in general, says that the 
results are to be attributed to the lack of success in prosecut- 
ing the war. This is true to a great degree of New York. 
The danger was realized before the election. Bryant wrote 
to Lincoln that Seymour would be successful if the army 
was kept idle, while a victory or two would carry Wadsworth 
to triumph. 2 On October 27th the Tribune said : " Do 
you know that if General McClellan had crushed the Rebel 
army ... at Antietam and General Buell had bagged that 
of the West at Perryville . . . Seymour would have stood 
no chance of an election?" Later, the Tribune enumer- 
ated as one of the chief causes of the Unionist defeat, "gen- 
eral dissatisfaction with the slow progress or no progress of 
our Armies, and a wide-spread feeling that, through the in- 

1 Weed's Autobiography, pp. 360-1. The Tribune immediately after 
the election said: "If many of his [Weed's] most intimate and devoted 
friends have not by positive action or determined inaction contrib- 
uted to verify his predictions, then they are grossly belied." — Tribune, 
Nov. 7. Daniel S. Dickinson wrote to Colonel Paine, January 7, 
1863 : " I was so shocked and humiliated by the perfidy which the re- 
sult of the election showed existed in the Union organization, betray- 
ing it to death, that I did not feel like saying anything to any one" 
(Dickinson's Speeches and Correspondence, ii, p. 599). Both of these, 
however, are prejudiced witnesses. 

2 Godwin's Bryant, ii, p. 176. 



252 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [452 

capacity of our military leaders, the blood and treasure of 
the loyal Millions are being sacrificed in vain." * And again, 
it estimated that 20,000 Republicans had voted the Demo- 
cratic ticket because they were " sick and discouraged at the 
mismanagement and inefficiency, through imbecility or 
treachery, of the conduct of the war." 2 The Evening Post 
gave as the principal cause of the defeat " the depression, 
amounting almost to despair, which the inactive and ex- 
pectant policy of the Administration has produced . . . 
[The opposition's] most powerful assistant has been the 
discouragement and apathy diffused everywhere by our 
military failure." 3 

What effect is to be attributed to the absence of so many 
men in the army? In 1862, 100,000 citizens of New York 
in the army were on that account temporarily disfranchised. 4 
Mr. Rhodes, after mentioning that the Republicans generally 
laid to this cause primarily the adverse results throughout 
the Central states in 1862, rejects the explanation. So far as 
New York is concerned, however, there is some ground for 
believing that Wadsworth would have carried the State had 
it not been for the volunteers losing their votes. Wads- 
worth received about 66,000 less than Lincoln ; Seymour ob- 
tained within less than 6,000 of the number cast for the 
fusion electoral ticket of i860. Either there were more 
New York Republicans than Democrats in the federal 
military service or if the strength of both parties was equally 
decreased through this cause, the Democrats must have been 
largely compensated for such loss by defections from the 
Republicans. To adopt the latter supposition is to ignore 
these considerations : ( 1 ) recruiting in the Democratic 
strongholds of New York City and Brooklyn was so slack 

1 Tribune, Nov. 5. 2 Tribune, Nov. 6. 

3 New York Evening Post, Nov. 5. * Tribune, Dec. 5. 



453] THE TRIUMPH OF THE OPPOSITION 253 

that the draft was repeatedly threatened, 1 while many of the 
strong Republican counties easily raised their quotas; 2 (2) 
the Democrats later interposed obstacles in the way of grant- 
ing to soldiers the right to vote; (3) the volunteer vote in 
other states where the figures were kept separate from the or- 
dinary vote uniformly supported the administration. Other 
factors which influenced the result were the harmony in the 
ranks of the Democrats of both New York City and Brook- 
lyn, 3 the October elections in other states, Seymour's veto 
of a prohibition bill during his first administration which 
gained for him the endorsement of a state convention of 
liquor dealers, 4 and the fear of the draft, which was re- 

1 The Herald (Aug. 2), discussing the prospect of a draft, said, 
" There is no mincing the matter that the city is not doing its whole 
duty in furnishing volunteers." Burt's Memoirs of the Military 
History of the State of New York, p. 133, says of the third levy of 
troops, i. e. from April, 1862 to December, 1862 : "A remarkable fea- 
ture of this levy was the slackness of recruiting in the great cities 
included in the first seven districts (New York, Kings, Queens, Suf- 
folk, and Richmond counties). Of the 39,787 enlisted men eent to 
the field before October 1st, the proper quota of these counties would 
be 12,547, but they furnished only 3,043 men." See on the same sub- 
ject letter of August Belmont to Weed, dated July 20, 1862, in 
Belmont's Letters, p. 80. 

2 See table in the Tribune, Sept. 30, quoted from the New York 
Sunday Mercury, showing that of the fifteen counties which had al- 
ready raised their quotas, all but two had given Lincoln majorities 
in i860, many of them very large ones. " Besides these," the Tribune 
continued, " nearly all the Republican strongholds have so nearly com- 
pleted their quotas, that they are morally certain to do so without 
a draft." 

3 After numerous conferences, committees from Tammany and 
Mozart agreed on a division of local nominations, though the pro- 
jected consolidation of the two general committees fell through 
{Tribune, Oct. 3, Dec. 16, 17; Herald, Oct. 7). In Brooklyn, the two 
Democratic organizations joined hands on the basis of a division of 
local spoils {Tribune, Oct. 1). 

4 Herald, Oct. 1. 



254 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [454 

peatedly rumored and even officially announced only to be 
postponed, thus keeping up the excitement. 

The effects of the Democratic triumph in New York 
State were far-reaching. It was the most important of 
those victories which made the opposition party throughout 
the North far stronger, bolder, and more virulent. It 
placed at the head of the most important source of men and 
money which were essential for the prosecution of the war, 
an executive who was out of sympathy with the national 
administration. It temporarily at least restored the Weed 
faction to the control of the party, and proved a corres- 
pondingly great set-back both for Greeley and for the wing 
which he tried to lead. 



CHAPTER IX 
The Partisan Revival in the Legislature 

When Horatio Seymour for the second time became Gov- 
ernor of New York, he was the most conspicuous Demo- 
cratic leader in the North. For some years he had been a 
figure of national importance in the councils of his party. 
His election was the chief triumph in a series of victories 
achieved by the Democracy in the central states in 1862. 
He and Parker of New Jersey were the only Democratic 
governors north of Mason and Dixon's line and the Ohio; 
but as New York was far more important than New Jersey 
politically and materially, so did Seymour bulk larger than 
Parker in the public eye. A contemporary and one opposed 
to Seymour in politics described him as " a gentleman of 
commanding talents, high culture, ... of bland and win- 
ning manners, admired social and domestic life." * Indeed 
his private virtues were universally admitted; and his pa- 
triotism, however impugned by his opponents, is to-day ac- 
knowledged by all. But it was a patriotism blinded by 
strong partisan sympathies and mental habits. Occupying a 
chair which before and after has served as a stepping-stone 
to the presidency, Seymour's inaugural address and his mes- 
sage to the Legislature were naturally awaited with interest, 
not only in New York but also without. 2 Would he render 

1 Letter of Gerrit Smith, printed in the Tribune, Jan. 23, 1863. 
a Some evidence of this interest in the message on the part of those 
outside New York is afforded by the commendatory newspaper extracts 
455] 255 



256 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [456 

a hearty support to the war ? Would he bring the State into 
conflict with the national administration? What extreme 
men in his party hoped for was seen in the utterances of 
Fernando Wood and James Brooks shortly after the elec- 
tion. Brooks, who about this time was advocating peace 
resolutions, 1 asserted that New York " would soon have a 
governor who would call out, if necessary, the whole militia 
of our State as a posse to enforce the writ of habeas 
corpus." 2 Said Wood: " I do not understand the character 
and the calibre of the Governor elect, if he is not the man 
to stand erect on the majesty of a sovereign power, and 
stand up for the rights of his State against any federal 
usurpation." 3 

Lincoln appreciated how important it was that the Em- 
pire State should sustain the federal authorities in the 
same hearty and zealous manner that Governor Morgan 
did, and accordingly wrote in March, 1863, a kindly letter 
to Seymour, expressing a desire for a good understand- 
ing with the Governor and inviting a frank correspon- 
dence. But Seymour's answer, long delayed, was not such 
as to result in that strong patriotic bond of cooperation which 
Lincoln aimed at. The Governor said he would give to 
those charged with the national administration a " just and 
generous support" — with a proviso: " in all measures they 

on the message, quoted in the Albany Argus. These included the 
Detroit Free Press {Argus, Jan. 15) ; Boston Post, Boston Courier, 
{Argus, Jan. 14) ; Providence Daily Post {Argus, Jan. 13) ; Milwau- 
kee News, Pittsfield Sun, Hartford Times, Trenton American {Argus, 
Jan. 20). The Indiana, House adopted resolutions of thanks and en- 
dorsement {Argus, Jan. 29). The Democrats of Chicago also en- 
dorsed the message {Argus, Jan. 28). 

1 Herald, Jan. 3. 

2 Speech of Brooks before the Democratic Union Association, 
Herald, Nov. II, 1862. 

3 Speech of Wood, ibid. 



457] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 257 

may adopt within the scope of their constitutional powers." 
Thus ended the well-intentioned effort of Lincoln to bring 
Seymour into harmony with those who must carry on the 
war. 1 Seymour, however, was bound by his campaign 
pledges to support the war; but he was extremely hostile to 
the measures of the government and particularly to eman- 
cipation. His was the difficult task of guiding an opposi- 
tion without falling into the errors of the extremists of his 
party. Even if he had been inclined to oppose the admin- 
istration openly, he would have found an obstacle in the 
fact that the Republican-Unionists still possessed nearly all 
of the principal state offices; the state senate had a large 
majority of the same party; and the lower house, when it 
was finally organized, was likewise in the control of 
Seymour's opponents. The Governor recognized that his 
role was not an easy one. " Now that you and others have 
got me into this scrape," he wrote to Tilden, a few days after 
the election, " I wish you would tell me what to do. Give 
me your suggestions. I shall need all the help my friends 
can furnish." 2 

The only influence which Seymour, while in opposition, 
could exert on the government at Washington was the indi- 
rect one of hostile criticism ; and he himself, in his brief in- 
augural, asserted his practical powerlessness over the course 
of national affairs. Nevertheless, he took a firm stand on 
this occasion in behalf of state rights. He had sworn, he 
said, to support the constitution of the United States with 
all its grants, restrictions, and guarantees, and he had also 
sworn to support the constitution of the State of New York ; 
and he would uphold both. " The first law I find recorded 

1 Nicolay and Hay's Life of Lincoln, vii, pp. 10-11, quoting MS. 
letters. 

2 Tilden's Letters, i, p. 168. 



258 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [458 

for my observance," he said, " is that which declares that 
' it shall be the duty of the Governor to maintain and defend 
the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the State.' The most 
marked injunction of the constitution to the Executive is 
that he ' shall take care that the laws are faithfully exe- 
cuted.' " * Such language must have seemed promising to 
the Woods and the Brookses of the party. 

This idea of the equal sacredness of the national and the 
state constitutions introduced the Governor's message. 
Little more than a quarter of the document was devoted to 
affairs relating to this State. 2 The rest formed a complete 
manifesto for the Democratic party. If the Governor recog- 
nized that he could have but little direct influence on the 
policy pursued at Washington, he nevertheless thought his 
message a fitting vehicle to convey his ideas in full even upon 
subjects which did not directly touch New York. Of that 
part of the message dealing with the State, the most in- 
teresting passage, in view of subsequent events, was that re- 
lating to the draft. The Governor stated that New York 
still owed almost 31,000 men to fill its quota, unless the 
national authorities would give the State credit for the 
excess sent before July, 1862. He urged that the Legis- 
lature give its " immediate attention to the inequality and 
injustice of the laws under which it is proposed to draft 
soldiers." He objected especially to the exemption of offi- 
cials and other classes who were " usually in a better condi- 
tion to give an equivalent than the mass of those upon whom 
these liabilities now fall." What the Legislature might do 
to avert the measure providing for a conscription, then under 
consideration by Congress, the Governor did not say. 

1 Argus, Jan. 3. 

2 More than five-sixths of Governor Morgan's annual message of 
1861 was devoted to New York State affairs, and a still greater pro- 
portion of his annual message of 1862. 



459] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 2 $g 

Turning to national affairs, he declared that there " must 
be no attempt to put down the full expression of public 
opinion." Drawing a rather fine distinction, he asserted 
that slavery was merely the subject of the war, while the 
causes were a prevailing disregard of legal and constitu- 
tional obligations and local prejudices. Seymour's criti- 
cism on the extravagance and corruption of the Washington 
government was rather moderate; for, while insisting upon 
the necessity of economy and integrity, he admitted the ex- 
istence of the opportunities which war gives to unprincipled 
men as well as the difficulties of checking their schemes, 
and he acknowledged that such difficulties should shield the 
administration from harsh judgment. On this subject, the 
tone of the Governor was not incompatible with true pa- 
triotism. But he was more partisan in speaking of the 
encroachments of the departments of the government upon 
each other and upon the states. He said : 

While the War Department sets aside the authority of the 
Judiciary and overrides the laws of States, the Governors of 
States meet to shape the policy of the General Government, 
the National Legislature appoints committees to interfere with 
the military conduct of the war, and Senators combine to dic- 
tate the Executive choice of constitutional advisers. The nat- 
ural results of meddling and intrigue have followed . . . the 
heroic valor of our soldiers and the skill of our generals are 
thwarted and paralyzed. 

The message then condemned arbitrary arrests and as- 
saults on the freedom of the press. It read : 

The suppression of journals and the imprisonment of persons 
have been glaringly partisan, allowing to some the utmost 
licentiousness of criticism, and punishing others for a fair ex- 
ercise of the right of discussion. Conscious of these gross 



2 6o NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [460 

abuses, an attempt has been made to shield the violators of law 
and suppress enquiry into their motives and conduct. 

The Governor denied that the rebellion could suspend a 
single right of the citizens of loyal states. Then he boldly 
asserted : 

It is a high crime to abduct a citizen of this State. It is made 
my duty by the Constitution to see that the laws are enforced. 
I shall investigate every alleged violation of our statutes, and 
see that offenders are brought to justice. Sheriffs and district 
attorneys are admonished that it is their duty to take care that 
no person within their respective counties is imprisoned, or 
carried by force beyond their limits, without due process or 
legal authority. 

Then followed a lengthy historical and constitutional essay 
on the nature of martial law and the doctrine that the presi- 
dent could declare it within peaceful states, concluding with 
a severe condemnation of that idea. 

Discussing the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gov- 
ernor said that its sole effect was to confiscate the slaves 
of those not in rebellion. He observed that it was " an 
extraordinary deduction from the alleged war power, 
that the forfeiture of the right of loyal citizens ... is 
calculated to advance the success of the war, . . . and 
restore the Union." The consequence of forcible emancipa- 
tion would be to convert the government into a military des- 
potism. Then Seymour rebuked the administration for not 
holding to the original declared purpose of the war, and the 
leaders of the Republican party for rejecting compromise 
in 1 86 1 and for attempting to " govern and control an 
agitated and convulsed country strictly by the opinions and 
sentiments of a minority." The Union must be restored as 
it was, and by accompanying force with conciliation. " Let 



4 6l] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 26 1 

no one think," said Seymour, " that the people who have 
refused to yield this Union to rebellion at the South will 
permit its restoration to be prevented by fanaticism at the 
North." However, the conclusion of the message was more 
reassuring to those who believed in supporting the national 
authorities in their tremendous burden. " At this moment," 
the message read, " the fortunes of our country are influ- 
enced by the results of battles. Our armies in the field 
must be supported; all constitutional demands of our Gen- 
eral Government must be promptly responded to. . . . 
Under no circumstances can the division of the Union be 
conceded." 1 

The Tribune spoke of the message as exhibiting " the 
dexterous dishonesty, the impudent though adroit sophistry 
of the demagogue." 2 But Seymour was neither dishonest 
nor a demagogue, even though he may have been an adroit 
and dexterous politician. Though the manifesto seemed to 
portend a collision with the government at Washington and 
thus was encouraging to certain disloyal elements of the 
party, yet the fact that Seymour came out in favor of sus- 
taining the prosecution of the war, even though he did not 
do it in a very zealous manner, was creditable to him. His 
message embodied the views of a man who considered aboli- 
tionist agitators equally guilty with Southern extremists in 
bringing on the war, of a man who disliked New England 
and sympathized with the South up to the point of secession, 
but who was firm for the Union. Partisanship was too 
strong in Seymour to enable him to rise wholly above it, 
but no more could patriotism be entirely subdued in him. 

Even before the message was sent to the Legislature, in 
fact as his very first official act after being sworn in, Sey- 

1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v. pp. 445-484. 

2 Tribune, Jan. 8. 



262 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [462 

mour had taken a step calculated to show that his oft-re- 
peated condemnation of arbitrary arrests was not mere idle 
talk. Since 1857 the metropolitan police had been freed 
from the baneful political influences which had formerly 
controlled it. It had rendered to the citizens an efficient pro- 
tection never attained under the regime of Fernando Wood, 
and from 1861 had cooperated with the national authorities 
in suppressing all disloyal attempts of Southern sympa- 
thizers. It had raised five regiments of infantry and several 
companies of cavalry, and within little more than a year 
had arrested nearly four thousand deserters. 1 Now, with 
unseemly haste, the Commissioners of the metropolitan 
police were notified on January first to appear for trial on 
the afternoon of the third. 2 They were charged with per- 
mitting the police to make arbitrary arrests of citizens in 
violation of the national and state constitutions, with allow- 
ing the prisons to be used for illegal incarceration of per- 
sons against whom no charge had been preferred and who 
were guiltless of any legal offence, with merely reprimand- 
ing instead of removing Superintendent Kennedy for the 
arbitrary detention of a Mrs. Brinsmaid, and with causing 
or permitting Kennedy to publish, for the purpose of intimi- 
dating voters, the order threatening the arrest of such aliens 
as offered to vote at the election of 1862 after claiming ex- 
emption from the draft. 3 

Whether acting from honest indignation, or whether 
spurred on by pressure from Democratic politicians who 

1 Tribune, Jan. 6. Oh the efficiency of the metropolitan police since 
its establishment by the act of 1857, see Governor Morgan's annual 
messages of i860 (Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, p. 181) 
and 1861 (Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, p. 282). 

2 Herald, Jan. 2 ; Tribune, Jan. 3. 

s The charges are printed in full in the Herald, Jan. 3. 



463] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 263 

wished to secure not only possession of desirable positions x 
but also control of the machinery which they had long 
coveted for party purposes, Seymour's action on this occa- 
sion produced a profound stir in political circles. The 
Herald declared that the anticipated removals would prob- 
ably be 

of high importance to this State and to the whole country. It 
will be likely to inaugurate a new era, in which the outraged 
constitution will be vindicated, . . . Henceforth we expect that 
the rights and liberties of the citizens . . . will be respected, 
and that the laws of the land will be held paramount to all 
arbitrary edicts issued from Washington. . . . 2 

Horatio Seymour, however, was not a bold enough man. A 
part that Fernando Wood might well have essayed simply 
brought out the Governor's weakness. The latter cited the 
Commissioners to appear for trial in the county of Albany. 
But when they failed to present themselves and transmitted 
a protest that, according to the statute, the charges ought 
to be sent to the District Attorney of New York County, 
who should examine witnesses before the Court of Common 
Pleas and certify to the Governor the evidence taken, 3 Sey- 
mour yielded. 4 And so the matter drifted on for a long 
time. 

1 " Upwards of two dozen applicants for these positions were early 
on the ground, demanding their [i. e. the Police Commissioners'] 
immediate removal without a hearing or anything else " (Herald, 
Jan. 6). "Long before Seymour took the oath of office he was im- 
portuned for the removal of the Police Commissioners" (Herald, 
Jan. 7). "It appears that he [Seymour] had yielded to a tremendous 
pressure brought to bear upon him by the Fernando Wood Demo- 
cracy" (Tribune, Jan. 6). 

2 Herald, Jan. 3. 3 Herald, Jan. 6 ; Tribune, Jan. 6. 

* Tribune, Jan. 6, including letter of Seymour in answer to the 
Commissioners' protest. 



264 NEW yORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [464 

When the Legislature met, it was a question which party- 
would control the lower house. This was a matter of 
more than local interest, as a United States senator was 
to be chosen at this session. The supporters of the na- 
tional administration were sure of a majority on a joint 
ballot, provided they were not deserted by the Union Demo- 
crats. Yet the regular Democrats, if possessed of the or- 
ganization of the Assembly, might refuse to go into a joint 
convention and thus prevent the election of a senator dur- 
ing the session of 1863, in the hope that they might have 
a majority on joint ballot in the following year. The same 
result might have been brought about by merely delaying 
the organization of the Assembly until after the day fixed 
by law for the election of a senator. 1 The House was com- 
posed of sixty-three Democrats, eight Union Democrats, 
forty-six Republicans, twelve Union Republicans, and one 
member — Cutler of Albany — who had received the support 
of both parties, but who, as the event turned out, voted with 
the Democrats. 2 In the Senate, there were twenty-three 
Unionists and nine Democrats. 3 

1 In order to proceed to an election in such a case, the statute relat- 
ing to the subject would have necessitated the passage of special acts. 
". . . . if the assembly is not organized .... upon the 3rd of Feb- 
ruary, the force of the statute will be expended, and it will cease 
to be obligatory" — Argus, Jan. 15; confirmed by the Albany Evening 
Journal, Jan. 2. Such special acts could probably have been blocked 
by the Democrats, even without possessing the organization of the 
Assembly. This policy of delaying the organization to avert the send- 
ing of an "abolitionist" at least to the United States Senate was 
advocated by the Argus {Argus, Jan. 15). 

2 Herald, Dec. 17, 1862. The Tribune claimed that Cutler had pre- 
viously been known as a Republican, but had had intimate business 
relations with the New York Central Railroad (the inference, of 
course, being that because of these connections, Cutler was amenable to 
Dean Richmond's influence) ; and it was also claimed that Cutler was 
elected in what had been hitherto a Republican district (Tribune, 



465] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 265 

When the House assembled, ex-Judge Gilbert Dean, the 
Democratic caucus nominee and a friend of Fernando Wood, 
received sixty-three votes for speaker, as did Lorenzo) 
Sherwood, the Union nominee. 4 Day after day, the re- 
sult was a tie. This showed that the Union Democrats 
held fast to the choice of the Union caucus, a fact signifi- 
cant of the growth of a Union party, and also indicative of 
the final results in the election of a senator should a joint 
session be entered into. For seventy-eight ballots, the pro- 
ceedings were, on the whole, calm and good-tempered, the 
monotony being relieved by various motions partly humor- 
ous and partly designed to kill time. 5 

But now began one of the most exciting and disgraceful 
contests in the legislative annals of the State. 6 The Union 
members dropped Sherwood, and after a vain attempt to 
get for Mr. Depew the one vote — Mr. Cutler's — necessary 
to elect, they took as their candidate a Democrat, Theophilus 
C. Callicot of Kings County. It was agreed that in return 
for support for the speakership, Callicot would not vote 
against any measure to sustain the administration in a vigor- 
ous prosecution of the war, that he would give to each side 

Jan. 19, 29). The Argus, on the other hand, asserted that Cutler "re- 
ceived the nomination of the Democrats which was concurred in by a 
Republican convention; but which did not prevent the regular pre- 
sentation of a Republican stump candidate . . . who received 448 
votes" (Argus, Jan. 12). Yet, Mr. Cutler was absent from the 
Democratic caucus when a candidate for the speakership was named 
(Argus, Jan. 7). In neither caucus was there any factional contest. 
8 Herald, Jan. 5. 

4 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 6. 

5 Herald, Jan. 8, 9, io, 11, 14, 15, 16; Argus, Jan. 8, 9, 12, 15, 16. 

6 " The dead calm of the Assembly Chamber has this morning been 
succeeded by a genuine and furious storm" (Tribune, Jan. 17). "The 
monotony of the contest for speaker has now changed to intense ex- 
citement " (Herald, Jan. 17). 



2 66 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 4 66 

an equal share in the committees, that the Unionists should 
have the other elected officials of the House, and the Demo- 
crats the appointed ones. 1 The anger of the Democrats 
when Sherwood and Depew at the session of January 16th 
successively withdrew in favor of Callicot was intense. Led 
by Mr. Fields, a Tammany orator of large lung capacity, 
who later at the downfall of Tweed " left his country for his 
country's good and died in exile," 2 the Democrats resorted 
to filibustering of every sort to prevent a vote. The worst 
passions were aroused. Finally, after Fields had spoken for 
about five hours, the Union members consented to an ad- 
journment on condition that a ballot without debate should 
be taken at twelve o'clock on the next day. 3 

Nevertheless, at the appointed time, Fields and his fol- 
lowers, under pretext of correcting the journal, prevented 
any ballot, 4 and a scandalous scene ensued. The Clerk, 
having no power to enforce the customary rules, was unable 
to maintain order. The galleries were filled with a disor- 
derly crowd, many (it was said) being bullies imported 
from New York City and Brooklyn. 6 These spectators ap- 

1 Herald, Jan. 17; letter of Callicot to Hon. Martin Kalbneisch, dated 
Jan. 17 (printed in the Herald, Jan. 20) ; Callicot's speech in his own 
defense (Herald, April 21). Callicot denied making any agreement 
that he should vote for any particular candidate for senator ; and the 
majority of the investigating committee reported that there was no 
evidence to show such a bargain (Callicot's speech, Herald, April 21 ; 
report of the majority of the investigating committee, Herald, April 
17). 

2 Autobiography of Andrew D. White, i, p. 104. 

3 Herald, Jan. 17; Tribune, Jan. 17; Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 68, 
69, 70. 

4 Herald, Jan. 18; Argus, Jan. 20; Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 70. 71. 

5 Herald, Jan. 18; the correspondent described the spectators as 
" one of the hardest looking crowds ever gathered together in Albany." 
The Tribune of January 19th spoke of the crowd as being " of the 



467] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 267 

plauded in no doubtful manner the Democrats, and hissed 
and yelled at Unionists. 1 One of the latter, it was reported, 
was struck by a piece of decayed fruit. 2 Meanwhile, the 
Democrats denounced Callicot in the most abusive words. 3 
One said that if Callicot was elected, he would never be 
allowed to take the chair; 4 and Fields declared that if Calli- 
cot was seated as speaker, it would be amid scenes that the 
members would regret forever 5 — sentiments that delighted 
the galleries. The effect of such tactics was a determination 
by the Unionists in caucus to adhere firmly to Callicot. The 
Democrats in his constituency held a meeting which cen- 

most brutal aspect . . . this squalid mass of ruffianism; . . . here and 
there could be seen . . . well known political bullies of New York 
and Brooklyn, the heroes who had led many a desperate primary 
meeting struggle, ..." 

1 Herald, Jan. 18 ; Tribune, Jan. 19. 

2 Tribune, Jan. 19. 

3 Herald, Jan. 18; Argus, Jan. 20. As a sample, the following, part 
of the remarks of Mr. Hughes of Kings, is given as reported in the 
Argus: "If Mr. Callicot is elected Speaker, it will be the result of a 
political coalition, the most infernal in its demoralizing elements that 
ever disgraced a civilized community. Take him — there he stands — 
polluted with foul dishonor, loathed by honest men, despised by his 
seducers, left alone to revel in the spoils of his infamy and dishonor. 
... I give him notice that it would be better for him that he was not 
elected Speaker — he might as well sit on the crater of Mt. Vesuvius 
this winter as in the Speaker's chair. ... I here call on the brave 
men of Kings County to spit this renegade from their mouths, to 
drive this reptile from their soil, which he has dishonored by the 
slime of corruption . . . He has hovered around this house for the 
last six days like a political prostitute, plying his trade, exposing his 
person, performing his lascivious gestures, until at length the Republi- 
can party enter into an illicit connection with him, and his election 
will be the bastard offspring of their embrace (Cheers in the galleries)" 
— Argus, Jan. 17. 

4 Herald, Jan. 18; the Argus version is, "he might never be inau- 
gurated" (Argus, Jan. 20). 

5 Herald, Jan. 18; Tribune, Jan. 19. 



268 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [468 

sured him in bitter terms, and sent a committee to bring 
pressure upon him, but to no purpose. 1 At the session of the 
2 1 st, the lobbies, stairways, and passages of the Capitol and 
even the floor of the Chamber were so jammed, that an ad- 
journment was soon carried. 2 On the following day, Dean 
withdrew, and Eliphaz J. Trimmer of Monroe was substi- 
tuted. 3 On the 23d, a number of ballots were at last per- 
mitted to be taken; but as a couple of Sherwood's former 
supporters were as yet unwilling to accept a Democrat and 
persisted in voting for Depew, no choice was made. 4 <• 

On the 24th, another exciting session occurred. Fields, 
seeing that Callicot was about to be elected, began to fili- 
buster. Points of order being raised, Fields declared that 
he would not be called to order and defied the other side to 
enforce any rule, inasmuch as the Clerk presided merely 
by sufferance. His remarks were received with approval 
by the galleries. 5 A Democrat, disgusted at such a scene, 
moved that a committee be appointed to ask protection for 
the House from the Governor. 6 Amid confusion and uproar, 
the Clerk put the question and announced that it was carried. 
The Senate had already made a similar request, 7 but the 
Governor replied that interference on his part, except upon 
the initiative of the house requiring protection, would be 
improper. 8 To the Assembly committee, Seymour now 
promised that he would see that an adequate force should 

1 Herald, Jan. 20, 22 ; Tribune, Jan. 20, 21. 

2 Herald, Jan. 22; Tribune, Jan. 23; Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 71. 

3 Herald, Jan. 23 ; Tribune, Jan. 23. 

* Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 72-79. 

5 Herald, Jan. 25 ; Tribune, Jan. 26 ; Assembly, Journal, 1863, pp. 79-80. 

6 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 81. 

7 Senate Journal, 1863, p. 53. 

8 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 485-6. 



469] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 269 

be provided, and the committee so reported. For the time 
being, however, the disorder continued. The Clerk hav- 
ing left the chair for a while, some one nominated Murphy 
of Erie for temporary speaker. Mr. Murphy himself put 
the question, and although no one could tell whether it was 
carried or not, he sprang into the speaker's chair. At once 
members rushed up and surrounded Murphy. It looked as 
if a fight was imminent ; but the return of the Clerk fortun- 
ately averted this. " The scene while Mr. Murphy was in 
the chair," wrote the Herald correspondent, " would have 
disgraced a barroom caucus." 

However, by this time, there were many Democrats to 
whom the tactics of such men as Fields and Murphy were 
offensive ; and so, a resolution that a ballot for speaker should 
be taken at the next session, immediately after the roll call 
and before the reading of the journal, without interruption 
by debate or explanations upon any point of any kind, was 
finally adopted. 1 On the appointed day, January 26th, after 
the obstreperous Fields had made one more effort to prevent 
a vote, and, having been called to order, had been defeated 
on appeal by the aid of Democrats, Mr. Callicot was finally 
on the ninety-second ballot elected speaker by a vote of 61 
to 59 for Trimmer. 2 The struggle thus ended brought to 
mind the contest for the speakership of the Thirty-sixth 
Congress. 

Because of the attitude of many of his former party as- 
sociates, Callicot had a most difficult position to fill. Never- 
theless, he proved to be an efficient and impartial presiding 
officer. 3 But the bad feeling and the intense partisan spirit 
already engendered kept recurring throughout the session. 

1 Herald, Jan. 25; Tribune, Jan. 26; Assembly Journal, 1863, P- 82. 

2 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 83, 84. 

3 Herald, Feb. 5, April 26 ; Tribune, Jan. 29. 



270 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [470 

While the event was still undecided, the Democrats had re- 
peatedly raised against Callicot the old cry of having made 
a corrupt bargain with the Republicans; and immediately 
after the Assembly was at last organized, Fields offered a 
resolution for the appointment of a committee to investigate 
these charges and also the acts of Callicot in the Assembly 
of i860. 1 This proposal gave rise to warm debates. The 
Union members succeeded in getting through the House a 
resolution requiring specific charges in writing before any 
investigating committee should be named. 2 Such a docu- 
ment was presented by Fields in March. Callicot was ac- 
cused of having entered into a corrupt agreement with the 
Chairman of the Republican-Union State Committee and 
another member of that body, by which Callicot was to vote 
with that party in effecting an organization of the House 
and in the election of a United States senator in return for 
his own election as speaker and for an amount of money 
sufficient to enable him to pay certain private debts ; further, 
he was accused of having solicited while a member of the 
Assembly of i860 money for his vote on a certain bill. 8 
The composition of the committee to investigate these 
charges occasioned further controversy. Each side claimed 
that justice required that it should have the majority of 
the members. 4 By a strict party vote, three Unionists and 
two Democrats were chosen and the inquiry was limited to 

1 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 108. 

2 Herald, Feb. 6; Argus, Feb. 7; Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 169-172. 

3 There was also other charges. Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. Z7°~2>77- 

4 Herald, Mar. 5, 6, 12; Argus, Mar. 5, 13, 14. The refusal of the 
majority of the committee to receive certain testimony led to further 
spirited and embittered party debates {Argus, April 7, 9, 10), as did 
a bill to give to the clerk during the organization of the house the 
powers and duties of the speaker in keeping order and enforcing the 
rules {Argus, April 3; Tribune, April 3). 



471 ] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 2 yi 

charges relating to the official conduct of Callicot as a mem- 
ber of the Assembly of 1863 only. 1 After a number of 
meetings, two reports were presented in April, the Union 
majority exonerating Callicot, and the Democratic minority 
finding true the accusation that he had received money 
which had controlled his official action and offering a 
resolution for his expulsion. 2 The final consideration of 
the subject on the evening of April 20th gave rise to a dis- 
orderly debate like those of the beginning of the session. 
Mr. Callicot made a long speech in his own defense. Fields 
and Murphy led in the attack. The former became involved 
in a warm controversy, and accusations of lying were 
bandied from one side to the other. The confusion and 
noise increased as the session wore on into the early morn- 
ing hours. Finally, the Union members succeeded in carry- 
ing the previous question, whereupon the Democrats in a 
body started for the doors. The majority report was then 
adopted, and the House immediately adjourned at half past 
two in the morning. 3 

While the Assembly was still unorganized, four weeks 
had elapsed and no legislation had been even considered. 4 
The Senate had meanwhile met and adjourned from time to 
time, having acted merely upon a few unimportant bills. 
Now, at the end of January, both houses were able to begin 
their proper work. On the 28th, despite attempts of the 
Democrats to filibuster, a resolution to go into joint con- 

1 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 449. 

1 Herald, April 17, 18; Argus, April 17, 20. 

3 Herald, April 21; Tribune, April 22; Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 
1 136- 1 140. 

4 Except that, at the session of Jan. 15th, the House adopted a 
resolution for the appointment of a joint committee to draft a bill for 
the erection of a hospital for disabled soldiers (Assembly Journal, 
1863, p. 66). 



272 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [472 

vention was passed in the Assembly by a party vote, Callicot 
voting with the Unionists. 1 

While the speakership was yet at stake, the necessity on 
both sides of avoiding the introduction of dissensions had 
prevented discussion of candidates for the senatorship. Now 
interest was focused on the Union caucus. Greeley, 
Opdyke, Raymond, and David Dudley Field went up to 
Albany, the latter two being themselves candidates. From 
the very first, however, ex-Governor Morgan was in the 
lead. 2 He was not a radical ; but he was not obnoxious to 
that wing of the party though backed by Weed. In the ex- 
ecutive chair he had earned praise by vetoing lobby projects, 
by his services at the outbreak of the war, and by his labors 
and care during his administration in raising soldiers for the 
defense of the Union. 3 The radicals now charged Morgan 
with being untrue to the principles of the party, and with 
having aided in defeating the Union ticket in 1862. How- 
ever, these accusations were met by a letter from Morgan, 
handed around in the caucus, in which he declared himself 
strongly in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation and 
denied any failure cordially to support Wads worth. 4 The 
radicals were unable to concentrate their strength. When 
the caucus met on the 2nd of February, an informal ballot 
resulted in Morgan receiving 25 votes to 15 for Daniel S. 
Dickinson, 11 for C. B. Sedgwick, 16 for Preston King, 7 
for D. D. Field, 6 for Henry J. Raymond, and 6 scattering. 

1 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 129-131. 

2 Herald, Jan. 10, 29; Tribune, Jan. 30. 

s See tribute of the Albany Argus (the organ of the Democrats) in 
the issue of Jan. 1, 1863 ; also the letter inviting Morgan to a public 
dinner in recognition of his services, signed by the most prominent 
citizens of Albany, including among Democrats Erastus Corning, 
Calvert Comstock, William Cassidy, Peter Cagger, and Amasa J. 
Parker {Tribune, Jan. 17). 

4 Herald, Feb. 1 ; Tribune, Feb. 4 ; also Herald, Feb. 3 and Argus, 
Feb. 4 for Senator Truman's repetition of these charges. 



473] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 273 

On the first formal ballot, Morgan had 39 votes, only five 
short of the number necessary to nominate. The second 
formal ballot gave him more than enough, resulting as fol- 
lows: Morgan 50, Dickinson 13, King 11, Raymond 9, 
Field 2, and Sedgwick I. 1 

Meanwhile, in the Democratic caucus, the empty honor of 
a nomination had been the cause of contention. The am- 
bitious chieftain of Mozart Hall desired to be named, and 
he himself together with several lieutenants came up to 
Albany to manage his campaign. 2 Very many of the 
up-State legislators, however, distrusted Wood; and of 
course, the Regency leaders were against him. His sup- 
porters were unable to prevent the adoption of a resolution 
declaring it inexpedient for the caucus to nominate any one 
and leaving each member to vote for such person as he 
thought proper. 8 At a meeting on the following morning, 
however, this resolution was reconsidered, and an informal 
ballot taken. This resulted in Erastus Corning receiving 28 
votes, Fernando Wood 20, scattering 16. Coming's nomin- 
ation was then made unanimous. 4 Wood, through the alli- 
ance with Tammany in the preceding election, had gotten 
a sort of hold on that organization; but the Regency stood 
as a bar to his further advance toward the control of 
the forces of the state Democracy. Back of this oppo- 
sition was not only rivalry between New York City and 
the rest of the State, but a dislike for Wood and his 
methods. 

On the 3rd of February, each house of the Legislature 

1 Herald, Feb. 3 ; Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 3. 

2 Herald, Feb. 4 ; Tribune, Feb. 4. 

3 Herald, Feb. 3; Tribune, Feb. 3. 

4 Argus, Feb. 5; Herald, Feb. 4. The latter gives the vote slightly 
different. 



274 NEW Y ORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [474 

proceeded to ballot for United States senator. In the 
Senate, 23 votes were cast for Morgan and 7 for Corning. 1 
In the Assembly the result was: Morgan 64, Corning 62, 
Wood 1, and John A. Dix 1, the last being Speaker Cal- 
licot's vote. There was thus no choice. A second ballot 
being taken, all the Union members and Callicot voted for 
Dix, who received 65 votes to 63 for Corning. Dix 
was accordingly the Assembly's nominee. 2 The two houses 
having disagreed, they entered into joint session, and Mor- 
gan was elected on the first ballot by a vote of 86 to 70 for 
Corning, 1 for Dix, and 1 for Dickinson. 3 The significance 
of the contest lay in the victory of the conservative wing 
of the Union party. Just before the nomination of Morgan 
by the caucus, Weed announced his retirement from the 
editorship of the Albany Evening Journal — to the intense 
satisfaction of the radicals; but this battle showed that he 
was still a power in the politics of the State. The high 
water mark of the anti-Weed wing during the war was 
probably attained at the state convention which nominated 
Wadsworth. By the following spring, the adherents of 
Weed seem to have been again on top, though not because 
of any growth of liking for his conservative views. 

In the number and intensity of partisan discussions, the 
legislative session of 1863 contrasted greatly with that of the 
preceding year. That part of Governor Seymour's annual 
message which expressed his ideas on the war and on the 
questions arising out of it, occasioned in both houses resolu- 
tions, debates, and many set speeches on those subjects. 
Night after night the Senate and the Assembly sat in com- 

1 Senate Journal, 1863, pp. 95, 96. 

2 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 151, 152. 

3 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 154. 



475] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 275 

mittee of the whole on the Governor's message. 1 In the 
matter of arbitrary arrests, the Democrats had an issue 
where they could safely venture from mere talk to action. 
Accordingly, as soon as the Assembly was organized, Mr. 
Dean, the Democratic leader in the House, introduced a re- 
solution reciting that since July, 1861, several citizens of the 
State of New York had been arrested without process of law 
and imprisoned without warrant within the State; that oth- 
ers had been so apprehended and taken, in violation of the 
statutes, beyond the limits of the State; that it was alleged 
that state officials had aided in such actions; that the public 
prisons of the State had been used for the confinement of 
prisoners thus illegally held; and that state judges were ac- 
cused of having refused writs of habeas corpus in such cases. 
The resolution further provided for the appointment of a 
select committee of investigation. 2 This proposal was, of 
course, opposed by the Union members, who openly de- 
fended the arbitrary arrests. After being debated at 
length, 3 the resolution was finally defeated by a majority 
of one vote — that of the Speaker — the division being other- 
wise a strictly party one. 4 

Resolutions extravagantly praising General McClellan and 
requesting him to visit the capital as the guest of the State 5 
were introduced and strenuously pressed by the Democrats, 
arousing thereby much partisan feeling. The Unionists op- 

1 Argus, Jan. 30, 31, Feb. 14, 20, 27, Mar. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12; Herald, 
Jan. 29, 30, Feb. 13, 19, 27, 28, Mar. 6, 11. 

2 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 115, 116. 

3 Herald, Jan. 30, 31, Feb. II, 18, Mar. 6, 21; Argus, Jan. 31, Feb. 12, 
18, Mar. 7, 21. 

4 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 546. 

5 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 188. 



276 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [476 

posed such an invitation as a political move. 1 Certainly 
the resolutions, if adopted, would have been generally con- 
strued as not merely an honor to McClellan but also a re- 
buke to the administration at Washington. Yet because 
of the widespread popularity of McClellan, it was a delicate 
subject for the Union legislators. One member of the 
Assembly wished to amend by striking out the eulogy of 
McClellan's services, extending the courtesy to him merely 
as an officer of high rank; another by inserting the names 
of Burnside, Hooker, and other generals. 2 The next day, 
after the recital that McClellan had " three times secured 
the national capital from the hands of the rebels " had been 
stricken out, the resolutions passed by an almost unanimous 
vote, all but a few of the Union members probably deeming 
it indiscreet wholly to oppose the proceeding. 3 But in the 
Senate, on the motion of a Unionist, the resolutions were 
tabled by a party vote, and that too, directly after honoring 
General Corcoran by extending to him during his stay in 
Albany the privileges of the floor. 4 

The emancipation policy of the administration was an- 
other subject of partisan discussion in both houses. 5 In the 
Senate, the Union members were able to pass resolutions 
approving the President's proclamation. 6 But although a 
similar resolution was introduced in the Assembly, 7 the 
Democrats were too numerous there to allow of its adoption. 

Three matters concerned more directly with New York 

1 Herald, Feb. 12; Tribune, Feb. 12. 

* Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 210. 
s Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 220. 

* Senate Journal, 1863, p. 152. Five Unionists voted with the 
Democrats. 

5 Herald, Feb. 14; Argus, Feb. 14. 

* Senate Journal, 1863, p. 136. 

T Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 232. 



477] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 277 

and yet growing out of the war occasioned warm partisan 
debates. One of these subjects was whether the State should 
pay the interest on its debt in specie or in greenbacks. Most 
of the Union members opposed the former as a blow at the 
greenback and at the financial policy of the national admin- 
istration. The greater number of the Democrats and a few 
Unionists maintained that the credit of the State should be 
upheld, and that therefore payment should be made in coin. 
The banks of New York City made urgent representations 
in favor of such a course ; x and Seymour sent a message 
to both houses, recommending the same. 2 A resolution to 
pay interest in coin to foreign creditors only was adopted 
in the Senate, the debate and division being on party lines.* 
In the Assembly, a resolution providing for payment in 
coin to all creditors except incorporated banks, banking 
associations, and other corporations existing by virtue of 
the statutes of this State, passed unanimously ; 4 for there 
was a feeling that the banks had wronged the public by 
violating the pledge printed on their bills, to exchange the 
latter for specie. 5 But the Senate refused to recede from 
its position, and the Assembly yielded. 6 

Another party measure of this session was a bill author- 

Herald, April 1 ; Argus, April 1. 

2 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 490-493. 

3 Senate Journal, 1863, pp. 384, 388; Herald, April 1. The vote was 
not a strictly party one, inasmuch as in the Senate four Unionists 
voted with the Democrats to pay the entire interest in specie; on the 
other hand, seventeen Democrats in the Assembly voted against an 
amendment to pay all creditors their interest in gold (Argus, April 3). 

4 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 708. 

5 Referring to the Assembly debate of April 1st, the Herald (April 
2) said : " Nearly every one who spoke . . . was strongly opposed to 
paying any of the banks, which have suspended specie payment, in 
specie . . . [There was] a bitter feeling against the banks." 

6 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 718. 



278 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [478 

izing the formation of national banks and allowing state 
banks to become national banks. 1 This proposed legislation 
was strongly opposed by the Democrats who claimed that it 
was a surrender of the rights of the State and a scheme of 
consolidation. 2 Nor were all the Unionists in favor of the 
bill. Though it was passed in the Senate, 3 the Assembly 
struck out all but two sections providing that two-thirds of 
the required deposit with the banking department might be 
United States securities instead of those of New York; and 
the upper house concurred in the amendment. 4 Thus, for 
the time being, the state institutions were denied permission 
to organize under the national banking law. 

The belief that Wadsworth had lost the election of 1862 
because of the absence of so many administration support- 
ers in the army stimulated an effort b)^ the Unionists to give 
the ballot to those in the federal military service. Penn- 
sylvania, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas, Wisconsin, 
and Connecticut had already passed such laws. 5 From the 
beginning of the year the Tribune kept up an incessant 
campaign in favor of a similar measure for New York. The 
state constitution provided that a properly qualified citizen 
who had been an inhabitant of the State one year and a resi- 
dent of the county where he might offer his vote for four 

1 Senate Journal, 1863, p. 516. 

' Argus, April 10, 21 : Democratic legislative address, printed in the 
Herald, April 29. 

s Senate Journal, 1863, pp. 516, 517. Two Unionists voted with the 
Democrats against the bill. 

4 Argus, April 27. From the entry in the Assembly Journal (p. 1269) 
the contents of the sections retained cannot be told. Even against the 
amended measure, twenty-six Democrats voted nay. For the con- 
currence of the Senate, see Senate Journal, 1863, p. 791. 

5 Tribune editorial, Jan. 13. The Connecticut law had been declared 
unconstitutional by the highest court of that State. 



479 ] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 279 

months next preceding an election, should be entitled to vote 
in the election district of which he was at the time a resident, 
and not elsewhere. But another section provided that no 
person should be deemed to have lost a residence by reason 
of his absence in the service of the United States. The latter 
clause fitted the needs of the Unionists, but the former was 
an obstacle around which a way must be found. In the 
end, the Union members sought to avoid the constitutional 
objections to a soldiers' voting bill by a measure authoriz- 
ing volunteers in the army and navy to vote by proxy. In 
brief, the bill provided that a legal voter in the service 
might empower any voter and freeholder of his election 
district to cast a ballot for him by transmitting to such 
citizen a written certificate, duly attested by a witness and 
acknowledged before a commanding officer; suitable pro- 
visions to guard against dishonesty were included. 1 The 
Democrats steadily opposed such a measure as unconstitu- 
tional and as liable to fraudulent abuses. 2 The bill, how- 
ever, was passed in the Senate by a party vote. 3 

The Democrats perceived that while they might safely 
fight this bill, it would be politically unwise to resist ab- 
solutely the giving of the ballot to the soldiers. Accord- 
ingly, when the Senate bill came up in the Assembly, Mr. 
Dean offered concurrent resolutions to amend the constitu- 
tion so as to allow those in the federal military service to 
vote. 4 Of course, such an amendment, requiring favorable 
action by two successive legislatures and ratification by the 

1 Tribune, May 6. 

2 Herald, Mar. 29, April 18; Tribune, Mar. 23, April 2; Argus, Mar. 
21, 29, April 20. 

3 All voting aye were Unionists ; all except one nay, Democrats. 
Senate Journal, 1863, p. 395. 

* Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 871. 



280 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [480 

people, would not permit the soldiers to vote until 1864, and 
then only if a special election should be held to ascertain the 
will of the people on the proposition. If no submission was 
made until the regular election day, the soldiers could not 
vote until 1865, and thus they would have no voice in choos- 
ing the next president. It was argued with plausibility 
that in two years there would be either no Union or no war, 
and that to postpone the matter for so long a time would 
practically amount to a denial of the franchise to those in the 
field. 1 Moreover, as the Tribune truly urged, such a special 
election would itself be contrary to the spirit of the con- 
stitution, which intended " that two General Elections should 
intervene between the inception and the perfection " of an 
amendment. Then too, a special election would entail 
heavy expense. 2 The Unionists, of course, wanted the sol- 
diers to vote in 1863, and so they declared the constitutional 
scruples of the Democrats to be a politic cloak to hide op- 
position to granting the privilege to soldiers at all and a sign 
of anxiety lest the great majority of them should support 
the Union ticket. 

While the bill was pending in the Assembly, Seymour sent 
a message to both houses protesting against it. 3 This was 
a rather extraordinary step, 4 in view of the fact that the 
measure was then in course of consideration by the Legis- 
lature. In his communication, the Governor fittingly repre- 
sented the consequences of giving the soldier the franchise 
by a law of doubtful constitutionality. He said : 

1 Albany Evening Journal, April 14. 

2 Tribune, April 16. 

3 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 508-512. 

* The Governor was assailed on this account by the Union members 
of the Senate, and defended by the Democrats (Argus, April 14; 
Tribune, April 15). 



4 8i] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 2 8l 

It is possible that the next Presidential election may be de- 
cided by the vote of a single State, and if votes by proxy are 
authorized, it is not impossible that such votes would, in such 
State, decide the election. ... It surely cannot be necessary to 
impress . . . the fearful danger which would attend the com- 
plication of the disastrous civil war . , . by the interposition 
of a well founded doubt as to the person rightfully entitled to 
the Presidential office. 

He then recommended the adoption of a constitutional 
amendment, and after that, the passage of suitable legisla- 
tion to obtain for those absent in the service perfect inde- 
pendence in exercising the franchise. Here the Governor 
launched into a rather uncalled-for assault on the national 
administration. " The conduct and policy of high officials," 
the message read, 

have caused great distrust in relation to the freedom from re- 
straint and coercion which should be accorded to the absentees 
in the exercise of this right [i. e. of voting]. ... It would be 
worse than a mockery to allow those secluded in camps or upon 
ships to vote, if they are not permitted to receive letters and 
papers from their friends, or if they have not the same free- 
dom in reading public journals, accorded to their brethren at 
home, to aid them in the formation of their opinions in respect 
to the conduct of those in power, the issues to be decided at 
the election, and the character of the opposing candidates. If 
the expression of their opinions by the votes they give, or by 
customary political action, is to subject officers to dismissal 
from service, and soldiers to increased privation, hardship and 
exposure, the flames of civil war will be kindled at the North. 
I have noticed, with deep regret, attempts on the part of some 
of the officers of the National Government, to interfere with 
the free enjoyment of their political opinions by persons in the 
army. . . . These inexcusable acts of official tyranny are ren- 
dered more objectionable by the language used in their execu- 



282 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [482 

tion, which is at once opprobrious in terms and a wanton and 
unjust attack upon one-half of the people of sovereign and 
loyal States. While subordinate officers are thus punished for 
doing their duty as citizens at their homes, those of high rank 
have been employed to interfere in the election of States in 
which they are not residents. No reasonable man can suppose 
that the people of this country will permit the noble army . . . 
to be used for electioneering purposes by those who are 
charged with the temporary administration of that government, 
or who are seeking an additional term of power. 

The Attorney-General, Daniel S. Dickinson, now gave an 
opinion that the bill was constitutional. 1 Despite strenu- 
ous Democratic opposition, 2 the measure passed in the As- 
sembly, by a vote of 65 to 59, every Union member and the 
Speaker voting aye, and every other Democrat who voted, 
nay. 3 The Governor promptly sent in a veto message, de- 
claring the bill not only unconstitutional but also defective 
in that it afforded opportunities for wholesale frauds. 4 
Again he devoted a large part of the message to an attack 
on the administration at Washington. Then he quoted in 
full the order of Adjutant General Thomas, dismissing from 
the service Lieutenant Edgerly of the Fourth New Hampshire 
Volunteers for " circulating Copperhead tickets — doing all 
in his power to promote the success of the rebel cause in 

1 Printed in the Tribune, April 17. 

2 Herald, April 23 ; Tribune, April 23. 

3 Assembly Journal, 1863, pp. 1185-1187. 

4 Some of the objections of Seymour seem frivolous or dictated by 
partisan spirit, e. g. : " It [the bill] does not require the proxy of 
the soldier to be proven before the representative of the State, but 
gives the power only to field officers of regiments, ... ; it does not 
permit the soldier to choose the friend in whom he would most confide 
as his proxy, but requires him to select one from the class of free- 
holders ..." etc. 



483] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 283 

his state; " and Seymour waxed indignant as he concluded 
with a protest in the name of the people of New York 
against such wrongs. 1 The Senate passed the bill over the 
veto ; 2 but of course the Governor could not be overridden 
in the Assembly, as that house was too evenly divided. 3 
On the principle of taking half a loaf rather than none, the 
Unionists now accepted the proposal of the Democrats for 
the passage of concurrent resolutions to amend the constitu- 
tion; and later Seymour gave his approval. 4 The Senate 
likewise adopted by a vote of 16 to 10 resolutions declaring 
the Governor's first message on the soldiers' voting bill 
extra-official as well as a breach of the privileges of the 
Senate and laying the communication on the table without 
action thereon. 5 

It was at this time that the Legislatures of Illinois and 
Indiana were showing such strong Copperhead sympathies. 
Of course the New York Democrats could not have gotten 
peace resolutions through either house. A resolution in- 
structing New York's senators and representatives in Con- 
gress, in cooperation with those of other states, to use all 

1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 513-516. 

2 Senate Journal, 1863, p. 794. 

3 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 1278. 

* The concurrent resolutions were passed in the Assembly imme- 
diately after the passage of the soldiers' proxy bill and before the veto 
of the latter — probably in anticipation of such a veto (Assembly 
Journal, 1863, P- 1278). The Senate had previously tabled such con- 
current resolutions by a vote of 16 to 8 (Senate Journal, 1863, p. 740) . 
They were now passed 19 to 10 (Senate Journal, 1863, p. 797)- All 
the nays were Unionists. Their ground for this attitude, as stated by one 
of them, was that by voting for the resolution they would practically 
admit the unconstitutionality of the bill previously passed. 

5 Senate Journal, 1863, p. 799. While the measure was familiarly 
spoken of as the soldiers' proxy bill, its title was, "An act to secure 
the elective franchise to the qualified voters of the army and navy," etc 



284 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [484 

proper means to facilitate the return of the seceded states 
to the Union or, if that could not be successfully consum- 
mated, to adopt such measures as would secure an early, 
honorable, and permanent peace, was introduced by one 
Democrat, 1 and a petition praying for such action by the 
Legislature as would induce the national government to end 
the war, was presented by another. 2 It is rather noteworthy 
that beyond this no demonstration in favor of peace was 
made by the Democrats of either house during the session. 
This fact was significant of the comparative weakness of the 
peace element in the ranks of the New York Democracy at 
that time, and also of the dislike and jealousy on the part 
of the Regency and its up-State followers toward the prin- 
cipal peace advocate in New York, Fernando Wood. On the 
other hand, a bill to confirm the acts of Governor Morgan 
in borrowing money to pay state bounties, and to make 
an appropriation therefor, was passed in the Assembly on 
motion of the Democratic leader on the floor, and gave rise 
to no party opposition. 3 So, too, a general bounty bill, 
legalizing taxation of towns to defray such expenses, was 
passed almost unanimously. 4 

This Legislature, perhaps the most disorderly in the his- 
tory of the State, 5 ended with the arrest of one member for 

Assembly lournal, 1863, p. 116. 

1 Herald, Jan. 31; Assembly lournal, 1863, p. 141 (which does not 
fully describe the nature of the petition). 

3 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 272 ; Senate Journal, 1863, p. 131. 

4 Assembly Journal, 1863, p. 272 ; Senate Journal, 1863, p. 144. Four 
Democrats in the Assembly voted nay. 

5 " The most scandalous legislative session in the annals of the 
State of New York" — Herald, April 26. "It is in vain to deny that 
no Legislature, except possibly that of i860, has won for itself so 
evil a reputation as that of '6$ and the curtain falls with criminal 
proceedings actually pending against one Assemblyman and threatened 
against others" — Tribune, April 27. 



485] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 285 

corruption l and with great excitement among the rest over 
the passage of a Broadway and other New York City rail- 
road bills. These enactments, which as the divisions show 
were the work of no particular party, brought to mind the 
scandalous " gridiron " Legislature of i860. 

An address 2 of the Democratic members of the Legisla- 
ture, issued at the close of the session, assailed their oppo- 
nents on many of the subjects mentioned above and dwelt 
upon the nefarious schemes of consolidation which it was 
alleged were being executed at Washington and assisted by 
the Republicans 3 in the New York Legislature — schemes 
denounced as usurpations detrimental to the rights and 
interests of the State of New York.* Taking their cue 
from Seymour's annual message, the legislators openly 
condemned the federal government for resorting to a 
draft. The party in the majority, the address read, had 
been reluctant to take measures for the defense of the 
State, and had refused to perfect the organization of the 
militia, while the administration at Washington at the same 
time proposed " to substitute a forced conscription for the 
old reliance of the republic, a citizen militia and a volunteer 
army." Despite the patriotism of New York, the address 
continued, the administration refused any longer to rely 
upon the militia and the volunteers of the states and, 

1 Herald, April 25; Argus, April 25. 

2 Printed in the Herald, April 29. The New York World, April 28, 
spoke of the address as a revival of " a former time-honored practice." 

3 The Democrats almost always persisted in calling their opponents 
Republicans. 

4 " But that the Senate and Assembly of the State should volunteer 
to become accomplices in this usurpation and outrage would be alto- 
gether incredible if it were not found recorded in the journals . . . 
by the votes of the republican majority" — Democratic legislative 
address. 



286 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [486 

setting aside the executive and legislative authorities there- 
of, proposed " to absorb their functions and to organize an 
army by forced conscription, placing money above life, and 
allowing those owing allegiance to the government to es- 
cape service upon the payment of a pecuniary consideration." 
The strangest part of this document was the corollary 
drawn from the alleged incapacity of the administration, — 
that the Republicans would make peace upon the basis of a 
permanent separation of the North and the South. " It is 
notorious," declared the address, 

that the abolition leaders boldly hold out this as the probable 
alternative of war. The men who have dictated with most 
authority and influence the policy of the administration, hardly 
affect to conceal that they will be content with this consumma- 
tion. The conduct of the war leads directly to such an end. 

In the name of the Democracy, they protested against such 
a termination to the contest, and asserted that the only ac- 
ceptable peace would be one made through restoring the 
Union upon the basis of the constitution, with the rights of 
every state strengthened and guaranteed; and that the con- 
stitution provided the means for effecting this end in the 
shape of a convention to amend and reaffirm the federal 
compact. They further declared that every Democratic 
victory in the North was a step toward such a goal. In 
conclusion, the address pronounced it the duty of the Demo- 
cracy of New York to furnish to the national administra- 
tion all constitutional means for the prosecution of the war 
until the armed force of the South should be broken, and to 
struggle persistently against disunion ; and it stated inciden- 
tally that the New York Democracy condemned heartily 
the objects and aims of the rebellion. 

Greeley, perhaps, was to some extent responsible for giv- 



487] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 287 

ing a little plausibility to the claims of the address that the 
administration was about to negotiate with the South upon 
the basis of separation. He had spread in his powerful jour- 
nal a most foolish idea. " If three months more of earnest 
fighting," he wrote, " shall not serve to make a serious 
impression on the Rebels — if the end of that term shall 
find us no further advanced than its beginning — . . . let us 
bow to our destiny, and make the best attainable peace." x 
A little later he had, in the editorials of the Tribune, pre- 
dicted foreign mediation, and had contemplated it with 
equanimity as an alternative to successful war. 2 He avowed 
that Switzerland would be acceptable as a mediator, and 
that he would be " willing to submit every point in dispute 
between the Unionists and the Confederates unqualifiedly 
to her arbitration, and abide without flinching the result." 3 
Greeley, however, was not the whole Union party, not even 
in New York State. The Albany Evening Journal attacked 
the first editorial quoted above, calling it treason. 4 The 
Times at once challenged the Tribune editor's ideas on the 
subject of mediation. 5 Plainly, Greeley's proposals on this 
occasion formed another instance of his embarrassing aber- 
rations. 

The sweeping condemnation of the draft and the de- 
scription of the three-hundred-dollar exemption clause as 
an invidious discrimination against the poor, which have 
been noticed as prominent features of the Democratic legis- 
lative address, together with similar utterances of a later 
date, were to bear fruit in New York before many months 

1 Tribune, Jan. 22. 2 E. g., Jan. 14, 30. 

3 Tribune, Feb. 13. Of course, the opposition at once took advan- 
tage of Greeley's blunder, e. g., Argus, Feb. 16, and succeeding days. 

4 Albany Evening Journal, Feb. 2. 

5 New York Times, Jan. 29, Feb. 5, 7. 



/ 



288 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [488 

had elapsed. The New York Democrats, in their blindly 
partisan feeling against the national administration, over- 
looked the fact that their own State had come very near re- 
sorting to a draft in the previous year, that volunteering had 
almost ceased, and that the Confederacy was filling its 
armies by a most tyrannical conscription. Even the con- 
clusion of the address, obviously carefully worded so as to 
enable the party to claim that it was thoroughly loyal and 
in favor of the war, was vitiated by the qualifying word 
" constitutional " in the promise of means to prosecute the 
war. At a time when in Indiana and Illinois, the Copper- 
heads were waxing, the New York Democrats — until then 
for the most part earnestly striving to be loyal while at the 
same time in opposition, — came out with an address " cal- 
culated to stir up dissensions and divisions among the peo- 
ple of the loyal States, [and] acts of resistance to the con- 
scription and other measures intended to strengthen our 
army and navy and to bring the war to a successful issue." * 
The address of the Union members of the legislature 2 
defended, of course, the administration at Washington and 
its measures, and claimed that depreciation of the govern- 
ment and carping at it were equivalent to aiding the re- 
bellion. This was but another, if milder, version of the old 
charge of disloyalty made against the Democrats in 1861 
and 1862. Yet, in this form, the accusation was not wholly 
without some basis of truth; and that fact constituted the 
justification of a Union party. The address replied to the 
preposterous assertion of the Democrats that there was cause 
for apprehension lest the administration conclude a dis- 
honorable peace. The document read: 

Dark shall be the day and bitter the wail that shall herald the 

1 Herald, April 29. 'Printed in the Tribune, April 29. 



489] PARTISAN REVIVAL IN THE LEGISLATURE 289 

triumph of this Rebellion, which shall roll back the civilization 
of the age and shroud in gloom the fairest and freest portion 
of the earth, which shall blast the hopes of the down-trodden 
millions in every land, and leave us to drain to the dregs the 
bitter cup of national humiliation and disgrace — to hang our 
heads in shame at the mention of our birthplace and our name, 
and earn for us the melancholy reflection that we have lost by 
our cowardice and faithlessness what our heroic fathers gained 
through suffering and blood. . . . No, fellow-citizens, there can 
be no termination to this conflict which shall not concede the 
triumph of the Republic. However fondly we may wish for 
the better day, ... we should still remember that the price of 
this return must never be the loss of liberty or the sacrifice of 
honor. 

With regard to the draft, the Union legislators earnestly 
seconded the demand for the faithful enforcement of the 
law. The address concluded with a calm condemnation of 
Seymour for vetoing the soldiers' proxy bill. 



CHAPTER X 

Movements Within the Unionist Ranks 

Outside of the Legislature, politics in New York were 
very active during the spring of 1863. At the beginning 
of the year, parties there were somewhat unsettled. Once 
more there was talk of a new conservative alliance between 
the adherents of Weed and the Democrats. 1 The gentle- 
ness with which the Albany Evening Journal handled 
Seymour at the beginning of his administration was appar- 
ent. Weed's paper actually commended the Governor's an- 
nual message of 1863, including the passages relating to 
the draft, and expressed dissent only with that part of the 
document entitled " Limitations of Power, State Right and 
Martial Law." 2 The Wadsworth campaign with its mu- 
tual recrimination as to who was to blame for the defeat, 8 

besides current newspaper rumors, e. g. Tribune, Feb. 7, Argus, 
Feb. 16, the following occurs in the "Diary of Gideon Welles" under 
date of January, 1863 : " He [Weed] has professedly left his old 
friends, but he is to carry as many as possible with him into a new 
combination where he and Seward will have Dix, whom they have 
captured and whom they are using ..." {Atlantic Monthly, April, 
1009, p. 483)- 

2 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 7. 

3 Frequent repetitions of the charge of treachery on Weed's part are 
found in the Tribune about the time referred to above. On the other 
hand, Weed assailed the Tribune, Sumner, Phillips, Gerrit Smith, and 
Greeley (Albany Evening Journal, Dec. 15, Jan. 15) ; he also charged 
Greeley with squandering the huge majority for the Union ticket of 1861 
by pressing the abolition issue for selfish reasons (Albany Evening 
Journal, Dec. 9, 1862). 

290 [490 



49 1 ] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 29 1 

had left no good feeling in the Republican-Union ranks. 
In January, A. Oakey Hall, then a prominent follower of 
Weed and the district attorney of New York County, went 
over to the Democrats. He was a witty lawyer and a popu- 
lar speaker, but he had earned a reputation as a lobbyist 
and was afterwards a principal figure in the infamous 
Tweed ring. Hall signalized his conversion by an address 
before a Democratic association on " The Political Crimes 
Against the National Crisis, Committed by Horace Greeley 
and his Abolition Associates." x A large audience greeted 
with laughter every coarse allusion to the Tribune's editor. 
This villification of Greeley was so characteristic a feature 
of New York politics at that time that it must be noted. 3 
On the other hand, the Democrats took hardly less satisfac- 
tion in the election of Morgan to the Senate than did Weed 
and his adherents. About the same time, when the Canal 
Board met to make the annual appointments, the State 
Treasurer and the Secretary of State — both elected on the 
Republican and People's tickets of 1861 — voted with the 
three Democrats on the Board, and this coalition selected 
none but Weed men or Democrats. 3 

In the State the conservative wing of the Republican- 
Union party was getting the upper hand; but the policies 
advocated by the radical faction were gradually being 
adopted by the administration at Washington. In an edi- 
torial of January 23rd, Weed, after assailing " Phillips, 
Greeley, Sumner & Co." asked: "Where are we? and 
whence are we drifting?" Finally, he became so disgusted 
that, after thirty-three years' service, he resigned the editor- 

1 Herald, Jan. 21. 

2 A striking example of such abuse of Greeley is contained in a 
Herald editorial of Jan. 23; see also on this subject, Ogden's Life of 
Godkin, i, p. 257. 

3 Tribune, Feb. 6; Herald, Feb. 5; Argus, Feb. 5, 9. 



292 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [492 

ship of the Albany Evening Journal and disposed of his 
interest in that paper, giving as reasons for his retire- 
ment the radical and irreconcilable differences between him 
and his party as to the best means of crushing the re- 
bellion. 1 This step, however, did not mean that Weed aban- 
doned his activity in politics. Moreover, the columns of 
the Albany Evening Journal were still open to him, and in 
long letters he fired hot shot at Greeley and the radicals. 
Indeed, scarcely had Weed announced his withdrawal when 
he renewed the. war with a frank declaration that the cause 
of his retirement was his dislike of " the incendiary prin- 
ciples of the New York Tribune, the Independent, the 
extreme views of Messrs. Sumner, Phillips, Gerrit Smith 
and their followers." Then came an attack on Greeley and 
his paper because of his " Let the Cotton States Go in 
Peace " and " On to Richmond " editorials, and because of 
his dabbling with foreign mediation. 2 Of course, Greeley 
replied. 

Weed had drawn upon himself another adversary also 
by writing to the Journal that the government, instead of 
being satisfied with suppressing a disloyal newspaper at 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, " should have suppressed the 
vastly more dangerous and incendiary Independent of New 
York." 3 This, indeed, was exactly the talk of the Demo- 
crats during the campaign of 1862, and they constantly 
harped on this theme in their press. In reply the Inde- 
pendent told at great length what the radicals thought of 
Weed and his methods. It said, in part : 

1 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 27. In a later letter to the editors 
of the Evening Journal (Mar. 27), Weed speaks of himself as having 
been " read out of the Republican Party, and driven out of the 
Evening Journal ..." 

2 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 31. 

3 Albany Evening Journal, Jan. 7. 



493] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 293 

Mr. Weed belongs to a school of politicians . . . who erect 
politics into a department outside of Christian ethics or relig- 
ious principles . . . the school to which he belongs is a school 
of politicians and not of statesmen. ... A statesman must be 
a man of comprehensive principles. A politician has unlimited 
faith in mere management. . . . There can be neither moral 
principle nor even patriotism in men who have learned to put 
party above country, ... So long as his [i. e. Weed's] sphere 
was New York, ... he has been reasonably successful. But 
the moment he attempted, in these great days of revolution, to 
transfer to national affairs the petite arts and snug shrewd- 
ness of a lower sphere, he found himself impotent. 1 

It was rather unfair to Weed to accuse him of being 
without patriotism and of putting party above country. 
One can scarcely doubt that Weed was a genuine lover 
of his country and on various occasions labored sincerely 
for it. No wonder that Weed replied in the Albany Jour- 
nal by declaring that " No man's zeal, in favor of a vig- 
orous prosecution of the war, exceeds my own; nor has 
solicitude for the welfare of my country occasioned in 
others more anxious days or more sleepless nights; . . . " 2 
To which the Tribune rejoined : Mr. Weed's troubles " are 
understood to have been not without their compensations. 
While most of us have grown poor during its [the war's] 
progress, he is understood to have become rich . . . " 3 
Greeley also spoke of " Certain active, unprincipled specu- 
lators in politics, who choose to be regarded as ' Seward 
men,' but whose card and rule is to take care of No. 1, 
and who, to that end, act under the personal guidance of 
Mr. Thurlow Weed." 4 Under such castigation, Weed grew 

1 Extract from the Independent, quoted in the Tribune, Feb. 13. 

2 Albany Evening lournal, Feb. 14. 

8 Tribune, Feb. 16. 4 Tribune, Mar. 7. 



294 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [494 

more bitter. In another letter to the Albany Evening 
Journal, he said : 

The day is coming when an insolent journal will not indulge its 
licentious tongue or apply its indiscriminate lash with impun- 
ity; when an editor who intrigues secretly with a foreign min- 
ister and a disloyal member of Congress for " peace upon the 
best attainable terms," may not shower his foul accusations 
upon better and truer men; when those who do not wear the 
Tribune stripe and support Mr. Greeley for Governor, Sen- 
ator and President, will not submit to be anathematized in its 
columns; and above all, when a fanatic, dazed, muddle-headed 
aspirant for office may not arrogantly lecture the President, 
defame his Cabinet, instruct Congress, depose generals and 
assume to command the army, . . . Half a million of men will 
not again " go to their graves like beds " under the threats of 
political hyenas who remain at home howling. This, by the 
way, is a peculiarity of abolition fanaticism. . . . a 

Such were the amenities of politics in those days. To an 
able and impartial observer at the time, it seemed that 
hatred of Greeley had " become almost a monomania " 
in Weed and colored his views of the situation. 2 That 

1 Letter of Thurlow Weed to the editors of the Albany Evening 
lournal, Mar. 9. Weed again broke out at the beginning of the cam- 
paign. He accused Theodore Tilton, editor of the Independent, of 
shirking his duty when drafted and exclaimed : " Shame on such a 
sneak !" Weed also assailed Opdyke, alleging that the latter's son 
when drafted had sent a substitute. " The Mayor is filled with pa- 
triotism at conventions and in proclamations; he is gorged with gov- 
ernment contracts ; he leans heavily upon the government to make 
good his lost profits; but his son when drafted is not strong enough 
to be a soldier ! . . . Out upon such false pretences — such cheap loyalty 
— such bogus patriotism" (Albany Evening Journal, Sept. 17). In 
a subsequent letter, Weed reiterated these charges against Opdyke's 
son (Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 19). 

2 Life of Godkin, i, p. 257. 



495 ] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 295 

the ranks of the Union party in New York State, thus torn, 
were not hopelessly disrupted, was remarkable. 

Scarcely less troubled was the Democracy of New York. 
By this time it was apparent to many, and should have been 
to all, that in the face of the repeated expression by the 
Southern leaders of their determination to accept nothing 
short of independence, the remedy so often urged by the 
Northern Democrats, a restoration of the Union by means of 
a convention of all the states, was impracticable. Two lead- 
ing New York Democrats, John Van Buren and James T. 
Brady, had the courage to acknowledge this, and, in the 
early part of 1863, to go over avowedly to the support of 
the administration. Van Buren, both during and after the 
campaign of 1862, had repeatedly advocated a convention 
as the proper means of saving the Union. But now, in a 
speech at the Washington's birthday banquet of the City of 
New York, he declared that it was useless to talk of negotia- 
tion with the South in view of the latter's refusal to treat. 1 

Following the period of depression after Burnside's de- 
feat, 2 there came another outburst of patriotic feeling in 
New York, which was not without effect upon politics. 
On the 6th of March a mammoth war meeting was held 
at Cooper Institute, for the purpose of organizing a Loyal 
Union League. There, on the same platform where Wil- 
liam Cullen Bryant presided and such strong anti-slavery 
men as Mayor Opdyke and David Dudley Field spoke, Van 
Buren, Brady, and Judge Daly, all three of whom had 
hitherto refused to abandon the Democratic organization, 
came out in favor of support of the national administration 
by a united North. As to the responsibility for the war, 

1 Herald, Feb. 24. 

2 At Fredericksburg, Dec. 13, 1862. 



296 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [496 

a favorite theme with Seymour and other Democratic ora- 
tors, Van Buren took a position directly opposed to that 
of his former political associates, saying : 

This is a rightful contest forced upon the non-slaveholding and 
the loyal slaveholding States by those who are endeavoring to 
establish a republic within the republic, based upon slavery. 
And to prostrate this rebellion, I am willing to devote any 
means, any time, any exertion within my power during the 
rest of my natural life. 

While still disapproving of the Emancipation Proclama- 
tions, he saw nothing in them which should hinder a vigor- 
ous prosecution of the war. He " bowed in silence " to the 
recent laws giving to the President increased military and 
financial resources whether he favored his acts or not; nor 
did he consider it wrong, under the circumstances, to put 
such immense powers into the executive's hands. 1 

Not long after, a similar meeting was held in Brooklyn, 
at which Van Buren and Brady again spoke. Van Buren 
said that inasmuch as the South had refused all compro- 
mise, there was no alternative save to fight out the ques- 
tion of the country's existence. He saw no reason why 
men of all parties should not fully cooperate in support of 
the administration, for none of its actions then called for 
serious opposition. He further defended the conscription 
law as by no means novel in our history, and he asserted 
that the slaves must be freed by the advance of the Union 
armies. 2 So complete a change by so prominent a leader 
as Van Buren was, created a sensation in New York 

1 Herald, Mar. 7; Tribune, Mar. 7; the Argus charged that Forney of 
Pennsylvania was the originator of the loyal league movement and 
that his purpose was to control the presidential election of 1864 
(Argus, Mar. 27). 

2 Herald, Mar. 17. 



497] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 297 

politics. The Democratic press warmly assailed Van 
Buren, Brady, and Daly for joining in a meeting with 
notorious anti-slavery advocates ; x and the possible extent 
of the defection might well have caused alarm. There was 
talk that the disintegration of the Democratic organization 
in the State was imminent. Seymour and the Regency lead- 
ers, however, were unable to rise to the level of Van Buren, 
and continued in their illogical position of attempting at 
once to oppose and to sustain the government. 

It was about this time that there appeared in the news- 
papers a letter from Lord Lyons 2 to Earl Russell, stating 
that several Democratic leaders of New York had sought 
in the previous November interviews with his lordship on 
the subject of foreign mediation; these politicians were de- 
scribed as favoring peace with the South and as chiefly ap- 
prehensive lest a premature offer of mediation should prove 
" a means of reviving the violent war spirit," thus defeat- 
ing the peace plans of the conservatives. 3 New York was 
aroused by this and other signs of growing Copperheadism. 
Accordingly, a number of demonstrations were held to dis- 
prove any suspicions of New York City's loyalty and to stir 
anew the patriotism of the people to meet the back fire. 

1 New York World, Mar. 7, 9 ; New York Express, and New York 
Journal of Commerce (quoted in the Herald, Mar. 11) ; attack by the 
Albany Argus referred to by John Van Buren in his speech at Madison 
Square {Herald, April 21) ; Van Buren alluded to attempts to dis- 
suade him from going into the loyal league movement; Voorhees of 
Indiana, in a speech at New York City on Mar. 10, attacked Van 
Buren for keeping such company; Wood assailed Van Buren and 
Brady in his speech at Mozart Hall (see infra) ; other leading Demo- 
cratic organs of the State which assailed the loyal leagues were the 
Utica Observer, the Buffalo Courier, and the Troy Times {Argus, 
Mar. 27). 

2 British envoy to the United States. 

8 This letter was published in the Herald, Mar. 30. 



298 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [49S 

At the end of March a great mass-meeting resulted in the 
formation of a second organization of patriotic citizens, 
the Loyal National League. 1 Its council included Francis 
Lieber, William Cullen Bryant, President King of Columbia 
College, A. T. Stewart, Mayor Opdyke, William Earl 
Dodge, William Curtis Noyes, George Bancroft, and John 
J. Cisco; while on its executive committee were General 
John Cochrane, John Jay, Parke Godwin, and Sidney How- 
ard Gay. Ward associations were formed throughout the 
City ; badges, certificates of membership, and loyal literature 
were distributed; and a pledge was signed. 2 Under the 
auspices of the League, the second anniversary commemor- 
ation of the attack upon Fort Sumter was held in Union 
Square in the presence of a vast assemblage, gathered " to 
renew to the government their solemn pledge and fixed re- 
solution to maintain unimpaired the national unity." 3 The 
multitude was addressed by an array of prominent men 
which in itself would have served to make the occasion not- 
able, the list including Postmaster-General Blair, Governor 
Morton of Indiana, Schuyler Colfax, Governor Peirpoint 
of Virginia, General Fremont, Roscoe Conkling, George W. 
Julian, General Sigel, Daniel S. Dickinson, Henry Wilson, 
George William Curtis, and Theodore Tilton. 4 

A week later, the Loyal Union League held a monster 
mass-meeting at Madison Square, with General Scott pre- 
siding — a circumstance sufficient to arouse enthusiasm. The 
principal part of the speaking was left to War Democrats : 

1 Herald, Mar. 21. 

2 Advertisement of the Loyal National League in the Herald, Mar. 
24; a different advertisement of the same, in the Tribune, April 3. 

3 Advertisement of the Loyal National League in the Tribune, April 4, 
* Herald, April 12 ; Tribune, April 13. The address adopted on this 

occasion was prepared by Dr. Lieber. 



499] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 299 

George Bancroft, John Van Buren, Daniel S. Dickinson, 
and Lyman Tremain. Van Buren declared that " the time 
had come when party considerations must cease to operate, 
and when the people of this country with entire unanimity 
must uphold the government of the country irrespective of 
party considerations." He attacked Mozart Hall's peace 
resolutions, and said : " Now, there is but one thing to do — 
that is to fight. ... It is impossible that it [the war] can 
be protracted for any length of time if we are a united 
people, and to be a united people we must discard political 
considerations." 1 This was precisely the fundamental 
principle on which the Union party had been founded. 
That Wood and Dean Richmond, who were mere politicians, 
were unable, after the first outburst of patriotism which 
swept the North in 1861, to rise to such a height is not as- 
tonishing. But that Horatio Seymour clung to his narrow 
partisan views ought to lessen our estimate of his states- 
manship. Had Seymour now acted with Van Buren, his 
companion in the campaign of 1862, the loyal masses in this 
State and perhaps in others would very likely have been 
undistracted by political differences — for a time at least; 
and conditions approximating those of April and May, 
1 86 1, might have once more prevailed in New York State 
at a period when the administration at Washington was in 
dire need of the solid support of the North. 

Among the resolutions adopted at the Madison Square 
meeting was one providing for the holding of a state 
mass-meeting at Utica. The committee appointed to issue 
the call was significantly headed by a War Democrat, 
General John A. Dix. From New York City, the loyal 
league movement spread over the State. 2 The opposition 

1 Herald, April 21 ; Tribune, April 21. 

s The call issued by the Loyal National League speaks of the or- 



3 oo NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [500 

papers declared that the leagues, despite their, profession 
of non-partisanship and of having for their objects the dis- 
semination of sentiments of loyalty, the denunciation of 
treason, and the upholding of the government in its de- 
termination to suppress the rebellion, 1 were masked party 
organizations. 2 The Argus denounced the movement day 
after day. The charge of being secret bodies was frequently 
raised against the leagues, and there was apparently some 
basis of truth for this accusation. 8 One leading paper went 
further, and affirmed that the Loyal National League was 
gotten up to help Chase to get the presidency and that the 
Loyal Union League was a machine in the interests of 
Seward. 4 Indeed, Thurlow Weed warned Seward that the 

ganization as established in every county of the State, and it is signed 
by secretaries, etc., of a great number of different county leagues 
(Advertisement of the Loyal National League in the Tribune, May 19). 

1 Circular of the Loyal Union League printed in the Tribune, Mar. 20. 

2 E. g. the Argus of Mar. 25th said: "It was idle to have expected 
that the foolish game of a year ago, of rushing Democrats into pre- 
tended ' No Party ' organizations could be repeated at this time, 
. . . the ' Loyal Union Leagues ' of a week ago have sunk into mere 
' Wide Awake Clubs,' — governed by partisans, and organized upon 
the narrowest basis of abolition principles. . . . The ' Loyal Union 
Leagues ' are to re-elect President Lincoln and perpetrate the reign 
of Shoddy for another four years after 1865." The Argus of May 
26th said : " What then mean the denunciations of Democrats at all 
the gatherings of these so called 'Loyal Leagues?' Why, at the re- 
cent Albany meeting to appoint delegates to the great Utica gather- 
ing, did Dickinson, and Townsend, and Nye, declaim and foam and 
rage against Governor Seymour, and the Democratic party generally? 
'These Leagues ignore party and partisans,' do they? Attend one of 
their gatherings and listen to the speeches, and see whether that 
can be so — whether the staple of the speeches will not consist of 
Republican and Abolition abuse of the men and measures of the 
Democracy ..." 

3 At least, their conventions held secret sessions. 
* Herald, May 26, 28, 31. 



5 oi] MOVEMENTS WITHIN UNIONIST RANKS 301 

loyal leagues were being - used to further Chase's presidential 
chances, 1 and Seward evidently had some apprehensions of 
this. 2 Certainly there were two rival leagues and pos- 
sibly Seward men were in control of one and Chase ad- 
herents of the other. But the existence of the two organi- 
zations seems to have been due partly to accidental and 
partly to personal reasons, and the allegation that the 
leagues were respectively Chase and Seward machines was 
probably untrue. 3 Far from being political bodies, they 
appear to have been the outgrowth of a genuine patriotic 
uprising. Nevertheless, every such movement, no matter 
how much it kept within its professed objects of supporting 
a vigorous prosecution of the war and to that end, the lay- 
ing aside of party, indirectly maintained the fundamental 
principles of the Union party, indirectly strengthened it, 
and therefore was not without a political effect. 

On the 26th of May, the Loyal National League held a 
state convention at Utica, with every county but two rep- 
resented. General John Cochrane, a War Democrat, pre- 
sided; and among those present were Greeley, Alvord, 
Roscoe Conkling, and Gerrit Smith. The resolutions 
adopted showed that the loyal league movement stood for 

1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, viii, p. 315, quoting MS. letter 
of Weed to Seward. 

2 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, viii, p. 315. 

3 " They have no more relation to Chase or Seward than to the man 
in the moon " — Tribune, May 29. Nicolay and Hay, speaking of the 
Union League generally (apparently they use the term "Union 
League " as synonymous with loyal league), and not of that in New 
York State, say that an effort was made to commit the organization 
" to some measure hostile to Mr. Lincoln," but that such attempts 
failed (Abraham Lincoln, p. 315). Further on, they speak of the 
anxiety of Lincoln's friends lest the Union Leagues should fall into 
the hands of the President's opponents and of the groundlessness of 
these apprehensions (Abraham Lincoln, ix, pp. 56-7). 



302 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [502 

the same basic ideas as the Union party. They denounced 
party organizations in time of war, pledged earnest sup- 
port to the government, declared that the success of the 
rebellion would mean the overthrow of republican institu- 
tions, and favored allowing soldiers, wherever stationed, the 
right to vote. The speakers generally gave full approval 
to the arrest of Vallandigham, and a resolution to that ef- 
fect was only side-tracked as a matter of policy. The con- 
vention also adopted an address, appointed a state execu- 
tive committee, and instructed the latter to confer with 
other loyal leagues. 1 On the following day, the Loyal 
Union League held its convention in the same city, with 
Preston King, ex-United States Senator Henry J. Foster, 2 
Lyman Tremain, Gerrit Smith, and E. G. Spaulding among 
the notables present. A procession of returned soldiers lent 
interest to the occasion. The speakers unequivocally en- 
dorsed the action of the administration in the Vallandig- 
ham case, and the attitude of Governor Seymour in that 
connection was freely condemned. Resolutions similar to 
those of the Loyal National League were adopted and a 
committee of correspondence appointed. 3 A few days 
later, the Democratic State Committee met and denounced 
the loyal leagues with great severity, comparing their un- 
conditional support of the administration to that given by 
the Tories of the Revolution to the King of England, and 
further charging that many of the active agents in getting 
up the Utica meetings were " influenced by pecuniary and 
personal interests in contracts, offices and stocks." 4 

1 Herald, May 27 ; Tribune, May 28. 

2 He was " a life long Democrat " (Albany Evening Journal, May 28). 

3 Herald, May 28. 

* Resolutions printed in the Argus, May 28. 



CHAPTER XI 

COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 

During the early months of 1863, the peace faction — 
until then very weak in New York State — began to grow. 
The rise of Copperheadism here was marked by disloyal 
utterances at Democratic mass-meetings and in Democratic 
newspapers. In March Vallandigham addressed a rather 
sparsely attended gathering in New York City. After as- 
sailing the recent financial and military legislation of Con- 
gress 1 on the ground that it gave to the President autocratic 
power " as inexorable in its character as that of the worst 
despotism of the Old World, of ancient or modern times," 
he said : " When an attempt is made to deprive us of free 
speech and a free press, the hour shall then have come when 
it shall be the duty of freemen to find some other efficient 
mode of redress." 2 Important consultations of Vallandig- 
ham and other Democratic chiefs with Seymour and the 
Regency leaders in Albany followed. Doubtless, they dis- 
cussed the recent acts of Congress, and the attitude which 
the Democrats, as the opposition party, should take. 
Seymour had, as we have seen, condemned the national 
draft while yet the measure providing for it was being con- 
sidered. When the bill passed through Congress, the Re- 
gency organ severely denounced it. 3 Furthermore, the 

1 For this legislation, see Rhodes, History of the United States, 
iv, p. 236 et seq. 

2 Herald, Mar. 8 ; Tribune, Mar. 9. 

3 Argus, Feb. 27, 28. 

503] 303 



304 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [504 

draft and the three-hundred-dollar exemption clause had 
been scored in the Democratic legislative address. If, 
however, violent resistance to the law was considered at 
the Albany conference, the temperament of Seymour and 
the views of Dean Richmond were sufficiently averse to 
such a course to prevent its adoption by the party in this 
State. Consequently it was given out through the press 
that the policy settled upon would include no opposition to 
a vigorous prosecution of the war. 1 

In Fernando Wood and his organization, the Western 
Copperheads had more sympathetic brethren. The crisis 
in the affairs of the nation, which had roused the loyal 
masses to activity and had given rise to monster war meet- 
ings, had a different effect upon the politicians of Mozart 
Hall and their followers. Toward the end of March, the 
Mozart Hall General Committee unanimously passed reso- 
lutions declaring the 

conscription bill recently passed through Congress, and which 
is claimed by the federal government to be a law . . . grossly 
and palpably unconstitutional in its provisions; . . . that it is 
subversive of the rights of State governments and designed to 
make them mere dependencies and provinces, to be ruled by 
military satraps, under a great, consolidating, usurping, central 
despotism ; that the people everywhere should be awakened to 
the infamous distinction which it makes between rich and 
poor, whereby the former is allowed to buy his freedom for 
the sum of three hundred dollars, while the latter, unable to 
command that sum, is to be torn away from his employment, 
his home, and his family, and forced at the point of the bay- 
onet into the ranks of the army ; that we call upon the author- 
ities of this State, in view of the intolerable outrages of this 
conscription law, to advise the Executive of the United States 

1 Tribune, Mar. 1 1 ; Herald, Mar. 10. 



505] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 305 

against the enforcement of this act here, until its constitutional- 
ity has been determined. . . . * 

At this meeting, Fernando Wood declared that the adop- 
tion of resolutions of such a character at so great a crisis was 
a significant commentary on the allegations, based upon the 
action of a few " recreant " leaders, that the Democratic 
party of New York had changed front. He further said: 
" We are for making men in power conform to all the laws 
of the constitution before we are required to conform to 
statutes that are no law and which are inconsistent with 
the constitution." Referring to the Loyal Union League, 
he asserted that there was no such word as loyalty in a re- 
publican dictionary. " Loyalty," he said, " is a monarchi- 
cal derivative. What means it? The King can do no 
wrong. No loyalty for me." He too contended that there 
were in the land only two parties, but his classification was 
different from that of the Unionists. According to Wood, 
there was first the party for the government right or wrong ; 
and secondly, the party against it. " There is no such thing 
as a war democrat," he declared. 

There cannot be war democrats, because that involves the 
necessity of supporting the policy of the war; . . . any man 
who supports the policy of this administration cannot be a 
democrat. The moment democrats endorse the policy of the 
administration, they at once drop the characteristics of the 
democratic party and merge into the abolition party. 2 

This man, who as a representative at Washington had 
played the double role of publicly opposing and privately 

1 These resolutions are contained in full in a letter written by- 
Fernando Wood to Hon. Henry Wilson, published in the Herald, 
April 3. 

2 Herald, Mar. 25. 



3 o6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [506 

courting the administration, shortly before delivering the 
speech quoted above wrote to Mr. Lincoln denying that 
he (Wood) was hostile to the administration and in sym- 
pathy with the South, and begging the President " to rely 
upon his support in his efforts to maintain the integrity of 
the Union." x 

A grand mass-meeting, arranged by Wood's committee, 
took place on the 7th of April. The call invited, among 
others, all " opposed to the conscript act, opposed to war for 
the negro, . . . [and] in favor of the rights of the poor." 2 
When the resolutions were read, loud applause was given 
to the declaration " that the war, as conducted by this ad- 
ministration, has been a failure ;" and great cheering greeted 
another resolution that said : " Under these circumstances, 
we declare for peace. This administration cannot conquer 
the South if they would — and would not if they could . . . 
we favor peace and conciliation as the only mode left to us 
to restore the Union." The resolutions further called upon 
the judiciary of the State of New York " to sustain and 
vindicate the right of the people to the sacred and im- 
prescriptible writ of habeas corpus, and to preserve the free- 
dom of speech and of the press;" entreated the Republican 
majority in the state Legislature not to sanction the estab- 
lishment of scores of United States banks and " the plunder 
of the people by the issue of hundreds of millions more of 
irredeemable and valueless paper money ;" and denounced the 
loyal league movement as a " base invention of the enemy." 
Fernando Wood was the principal speaker. He asserted 
that the country was in the midst of two revolutions : 

one at the South, with the sword, and the other at the North 

1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, pp. 365-6. 

2 Herald, April 5. 



507] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 307 

by executive and legislative usurpations. . . . This latter enemy 
is unfortunately in possession of the government. . . . Taking 
advantage of the popular enthusiasm in behalf of the Union, it 
has, under the pretext of furthering this holy object, gradually 
fastened the chains of slavery upon the people. 

He enumerated eleven classes as supporters of the war. 
These were : first, the banking interests ; second, New Eng- 
land, which having lost a valuable customer in the South, 
found a profitable substitute in army contracts; third, the 
railroad interests; fourth, the debtor class, which in the 
" intoxication " consequent upon the inflation caused by the 
war, hoped to liquidate their debts ; fifth, the " abolition 
fanatics;" sixth, the office-holders, contractors, and govern- 
ment employees ; seventh, " the members of the administra- 
tion themselves who hope ... to perpetuate their author- 
ity for another term, if not for life;" eighth, the Republican 
partisans; ninth, the War Democrats, whose attitude Wood 
attributed to the base desire to share in the spoils; tenth, 
" some honest and patriotic men, who really believe that by 
fighting we can restore the Union ;" and eleventh, the army. 
" Is it not a terrific combination to confront?" asked Wood. 
A Democratic successor of Lincoln, he went on, if 

an independent man, with nerve and brain and the principles 
of peace in his heart . . . would restore the Union without 
further loss of blood, if such a blessing were within the range 
of possibilities. . . . He should cease hostilities and take a step 
towards ascertaining whether a conference could be obtained. 
This could be done either openly and officially, or privately 
and unofficially, . . . What shape or form the procedure should 
assume would be a matter of argument after the conference 
had been agreed upon. 1 

1 Herald, April 8 ; Tribune, April 8. 



3 o8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [508 

Here was the whole peace program of the Chicago 
platform of 1864 anticipated, boldly enunciated, and ad- 
vocated. It is after reading such utterances as those of 
Wood that one sees how completely the action of the 
Democratic National Convention was a victory for Wood 
and his Western allies. It is noteworthy that the Mozart 
chieftain did not say what a Democratic president would 
do if a bloodless restoration of the Union was found not to 
be " within the range of possibilities." But, since he main- 
tained that war could not accomplish the desired end, the in- 
ference was plain, despite all his protestations of devotion 
to the Union, that the alternative to a successful execution 
of his plan was separation. 

Such was the situation in New York when the Vallandig- 
ham affair * occurred in Ohio. The seizure, incarceration, 
and sentence of so prominent a leader stirred the Demo- 
crats once more to angry denunciations. Even adminis- 
tration newspapers in New York disapproved or deplored 
the action of the officials concerned, the Evening Post — a 
staunch supporter of the government — going so far as, to ask 
whether, if Vallandigham's peace nonsense was treasonable. 
Greeley's might not be equally so. 2 The Democrats gath- 
ered in mass-meetings to express their indignation, cheer 
every mention of Vallandigham's name, and give evidences 
of their sympathy for the martyr. Of these demonstra- 
tions, those at Albany, New York City, Buffalo, and Brook- 
lyn deserve mention. 3 

1 For the Vallandigham affair, see Rhodes, History of the United 
iv, p. 247 et seq. 

7 New York Evening Post, May 14. 

3 Besides these, I have found in the Argus notices of meetings of 
protest at Syracuse, Rome, Utica, Troy, Waterloo, in Schoharie County, 
and in Dutchess County. So far as the resolutions were published, 
they were not of a Copperhead character but approved Seymour's letter. 



509] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 309 

The Albany meeting on the 16th of May was presided 
over by Erastus Corning; Amasa J. Parker and Repre- 
sentative Francis Kernan made addresses; and Governor 
Seymour sent a letter. It is noteworthy that both Parker 
and Kernan warned their hearers against violence. Neither 
did they or any of the resolutions undertake to defend 
Vallandigham's principles. 1 The Governor sounded a bold 
note. He pronounced the arrest of Vallandigham an act 
which dishonored the country, an exercise of power danger- 
ous to the persons and homes of his listeners, and a con- 
scious violation of law and justice. " If this proceeding," 
he wrote, " is approved by the government and sanctioned 
by the people, it is not merely a step towards revolution — 
it is revolution. It will not only lead to military despotism 
— it establishes military despotism." The people awaited 
with the deepest anxiety the administration's decision in the 
matter. " We pause to see," he went on, 

what kind of government it is for which we are asked to pour 
out our blood and our treasure. The action of the administra- 
tion will determine in the minds of more than one-half of the 
people of the loyal States whether this war is waged to put 
down rebellion at the South or to destroy free institutions at 
the North. 2 

This letter met with general commendation in anti-adminis- 
tration circles, while the supporters of the government con- 
demned the document warmly, the Tribune speaking of it 
as " full of provocation to lawlessness, riot and devasta- 
tion." s 

1 Argus, May 18. 

2 Printed in the Herald, May 19. 

3 Tribune, May 18. 



310 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [510 

The meeting further transmitted a series of resolutions 
to Lincoln, requesting his earnest consideration of them. 1 
These resolutions, after pointing to the alacrity with which 
Democrats of New York had filled the ranks of the army 
and supported the war, and after reiterating their determin- 
ation to continue in this patriotic course and " to devote all 
. . . [their] . . . energies to sustain [ing] the cause of the 
Union to secure peace through victory," demanded that 
the administration be true to the constitution, recognize and 
maintain the rights of the states and the liberties of the 
citizen, and outside of the lines of necessary military occu- 
pation uphold the supremacy of the civil over martial law. 
They denounced the arrest of Vallandigham and the action 
of the military tribunal. Such proceedings, they declared, 
not only abrogated the right of the people to assemble and 
discuss the affairs of the government, liberty of speech and 
of the press, trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the 
privilege of habeas corpus, but also struck a fatal blow at 
the supremacy of the law and of the state and federal consti- 
tutions. While aiming to be courteous and temperate in 
discussing public measures and men, they would when the 
right itself was questioned " bid defiance to any arm that 
would move " them from their ground. The first two of 
these resolutions are worthy of note because they show that 
the Regency leaders still wished to be considered War 
Democrats. 

The Buffalo meeting gave a hearty approval to Seymour's 
letter and adopted the same resolutions as the Albany 
meeting. 2 The tone of the speakers was not that of the 

1 The letter of transmission together with the resolutions are printed 
in the Herald, June 15. For the subsequent correspondence between 
Lincoln and the committee, see Argus, July 4. 

2 Argus, June 4. 



5 1 1 ] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 3 1 1 

Copperheads. Said one : " We stand . . . where we have 
always stood, ready at all times to furnish men and money 
to put down the rebellion, ..." Congressman John 
Ganson declared : 

You are not here to manifest sympathy for any individual, nor 
to approve of the sentiments of Mr. Vallandigham, or to en- 
dorse his action. You are here, however, to avow your decided 
disapproval of the manner of his " taking off." . . . We are in 
favor of furnishing those in authority the men and means 
necessary for the prosecution of the pending war, until the 
armed force of the rebellion is broken, and till those who are 
engaged in it sue for peace. We . . . continue to give a cheer- 
ful and cordial support to all proper efforts of the Administra- 
tion to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws on every 
foot of our soil. 

This speech was reported to have been received with en- 
thusiastic applause. 1 Sanford E. Church, former lieutenant- 
governor and later chief justice of the Court of Appeals, 
uttered similar sentiments/ and so did those who spoke at 
the Brooklyn meeting on June nth. 8 

Far different was the spirit of the great demonstration 
at Union Square in New York City. It was noticeable 
that here, the prominent Democrats of the City were not 
among the numerous speakers. Those who addressed the 
gathering, however, made up for their comparative obscur- 
ity by the revolutionary character of their talk. Not only 
were the administration and its measures — especially eman- 
cipation — attacked in the most violent terms; not only was 
every mention of Lincoln greeted with groans; not only 
were the sentiments of Vallandigham repeatedly endorsed 

1 Argus, June 5. 2 Argus, June 5. 

3 Herald, June 12 ; Argus, June 15. 



3 i2 NEW YORK STATE D URING THE CIVIL WAR [512 

by the speakers and applauded by the crowd ; but the most 
disloyal exhortations were received with cheering. Eli P. 
Norton, for instance, said: 

If an issue were to come between the federal authorities and 
the law, he wished to stand by the law, to stand where the 
Governor of New York, his commander-in-chief . . . stood. 
. . . There might soon be a time when the people of the State 
of New York would be called upon to defend their rights. 

J. A. McMasters, the editor of the disloyal Freeman's 
Journal and an ex-inmate of Fort Lafayette, went still 
further. The time for deliberation, he said, had gone, 
and the time for action had come. 

So far as he knew or had read of Mr. Vallandigham, he re- 
spected and loved him for his virtues, and he knew of no man 
living with whose sentiments he more cordially agreed . . . 
Vallandigham knew, as he knew, that there was but one way 
of bringing back the Union, and that was to stop this accursed 
war (cheers) . . . Vallandigham had called for peace in order 
to try the last hope of restoring the Union. It had been tried 
by a war in violation of the constitution and it had failed and 
always would fail . . . the South never could be conquered 
(cheers). . . . Under their gallant Governor Seymour, the 
four millions of New York would be able to guard and keep 
their State against the world ; and could it be believed that 
eight millions of people in the South, as brave and resolute, 
could be defeated? 

The question at issue now was, not the independence of the 
South but the liberty of the people of the North. How 
could that be maintained ? " By fighting," McMasters an- 
swered, 

but not by street fighting, not by disorganized opposition. 



513] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 313 

They should organize by tens and hundreds, by companies and 
regiments, and they should send to their Governor and ask 
him for commissions as soon as they had their regiments formed 
(cheers). . . . They should keep their arms, and if they had 
not them, they should get them, and be ready, under their gal- 
lant Governor, to defend the liberties of their State (cheers). 

Judge McCunn, one of the prominent men in Mozart 
Hall, thanked God that New York had a Governor who 
would not let the people be deprived of their liberties with- 
out his solemn protest. There was but one course for 
freemen, he said, — liberty or death. Another speaker, 
Edmund Blankman, reminded 

the George III of the present day that he too may have his 
Cromwell or his Brutus (cheers). The mechanic who had not 
three hundred dollars in his pocket would have to go to the 
war, but that mechanic's employer, who had three hundred 
dollars . . . would not have to go. . . . They all said " no," 
but just let them wait till . . . July came, and then the provost 
marshals commenced their work. 

Mr. John Mullaly declared that 

while we had such a Governor as Horatio Seymour, . . . there 
was not a man there need be afraid of being carried off as 
Vallandigham had been . . . there was one State out of which 
Vallandigham could not have been taken, except over the bodies 
of thousands of armed citizens (great applause). . . . Gover- 
nor Seymour knew the spirit of the people of the Empire State 
when he wrote the letter to the Albany meeting and . . . that 
the people would stand by him, with guns and bayonets in their 
hands, at all hazards. 

Then the speaker inquired where the laborer would get 
three hundred dollars and whether he would consent to be 



314 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [5^ 

drafted. The conscription act would never be carried out 
in the State of New York. He also declared that we " had 
fought enough with our fellow-countrymen of the South." 
Daniel C. Birdsall said : 

They seized Vallandigham at night because they loved dark- 
ness more than light, for their deeds were evil. Such things 
must not happen in New York. For if such things were done, 
they would rise as one man, and rescue . . . [the one seized] 
from the grasp of power. . . . He would not ask them to take 
up arms against the Conscript law now, but a time may come 
when their rights must be asserted. 

Another speaker asked: "Are we prepared to rally round 
Governor Seymour as a posse comitatus to carry out the 
laws? Seymour is slow but he is sure. . . . We may yet 
have to shed our blood in the streets for the maintainence 
of our liberties." 

The resolutions adopted denounced the arrest of Val- 
landigham as " a startling outrage upon the hitherto sacred 
rights of American citizenship," expressed attachment for 
the Union — incendiary revolutionists of a copper hue gen- 
erally did that — endorsed Governor Seymour's letter to the 
Albany meeting, called upon " the Governor of the State 
of New York and all others in authority ... to save us 
from the humiliation and peril of . . . arrest and trial 
before military commission," and promised to do all in the 
power of those present to sustain Seymour " in his deter- 
mination to preserve inviolate the sovereignty of our State 
and the rights of its' people against federal encroachments 
and usurpations." * The New York Herald truly re- 
marked that all that Vallandigham had ever uttered was 
cast into the shade by the speeches at this meeting, and 

1 Herald, May 19; Tribune, May 20. 



515] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 315 

that if Secretary Stanton intended to carry out the prin- 
ciple on which the Vallandigham arrest was based, he 
would have plenty to do thereafter. 1 There can be little 
doubt of the connection between this incident in New 
York's political history and the draft riot of the following 
July. The worst elements of the City's population had 
been aroused. 

The Copperhead demonstrations occasioned by the Val- 
landigham affair had another significance. It marked a 
renewal of the struggle within the Democratic ranks in 
New York State between Fernando Wood and the Regency. 
The speeches and resolutions of the New York City meet- 
ing compared with those of the Albany or Buffalo meetings 
showed the difference between the factions. While Wood 
and his followers came out for peace, the Regency and their 
adherents declared themselves still in favor of a vigorous 
prosecution of the war for constitutional ends. The Re- 
gency press contrasted the recent defeat of the Democrats 
on Copperhead platforms in Connecticut, New Hampshire 
and Rhode Island with the Democratic victories on a war 
platform in the middle states in 1862. " The result of 
departing from the New York standard," said the New 
York Atlas, an offshoot of the Albany organ of the Re- 
gency, " was a signal defeat of the democracy in those 
States [i. e. New England]. . . The 'copperhead' experi- 
ment was an egregious blunder. . . ." If New York was 
to be carried at the coming presidential election, the article 
went on, the Democracy must not stand upon the anti-war 
plank of Vallandigham. And it proposed for the presiden- 
tial nomination in 1864 Horatio Seymour as the favorite 
candidate of the conservative men of the nation. 2 

1 Herald, May 22. 

2 New York Atlas, May 4, quoted in the Herald, May 26. 



316 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [516 

At a meeting of the Democratic State Committee, which 
was controlled by the Regency, resolutions were unani- 
mously adopted which declared a lack of confidence in 
the administration's ability to bring about a peace bene- 
ficial to the whole Union, and endorsed Seymour's Albany 
letter. Yet they reaffirmed the resolutions of the preceding 
Democratic State Convention that the Democrats would 
continue to sustain the government " in the use of all legiti- 
mate means to suppress the rebellion and to restore the 
Union as it was and maintain the Constitution as it is." 
While they earnestly desired a cessation of the war, the 
committee's resolutions protested against negotiations with 
the South by the administration except on the basis of the 
preservation of the Union, and they expressed disapproval 
of the peace movement on the ground that those in power 
might use such agitation as a pretext for concluding a dis- 
honorable treaty. 1 Tammany ranged itself beside the Re- 
gency. The Wigwam prided itself upon its patriotic record, 
and therefore could not afford to endorse the peace idea, 
even if that program had not had as its foremost advocate 
Tammany's bitter rival. Accordingly, at a meeting on 
June 4th, the Tammany General Committee unanimously 
passed resolutions similar to those of the Democratic State 
Committee. 2 

Meanwhile Wood was spreading his agitation through 
the State. 3 About the same time the Daily News was 
revived as the organ of the Copperheads. Not long after 
the defeat at Chancellorsville, a call for a mass state 

1 Resolutions printed in the Argus, May 28. 

2 Advertisement of Tammany Hall, printed in the Herald, June 6. 

3 " Wood has been sending circulars into every county of the State 
for the purpose of getting up a State mass meeting ..." (Albany 
dispatch in the Herald, April 15). 



517] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 317 

convention for " Peace and Reunion " was issued, signed 
by two persons from each senatorial district, the most 
prominent being Wood and his immediate followers of 
Mozart Hall. The signers declared that they loved the 
Union and would never willingly relinquish it, but that they 
believed that the efforts to maintain it by arms had proved 
a failure and that the administration could not restore it 
by brute force. They favored a vigorous prosecution of 
peace. While they would " submit to no national dismem- 
berment and no terms not justified by every principle of 
honor," they would " go very far in the spirit of con- 
ciliation and concession to restore the Union." They there- 
fore summoned those holding like views to meet in New 
York City on the 3rd of June, to take measures for a 
speedy settlement of the war. 1 

The convention took place on the appointed date. 
Cooper Institute and the surrounding streets were jammed, 
the Herald estimating the crowd at thirty thousand. 2 Ap- 
prehension of bloodshed as a result of the demonstration 3 
proved groundless; for no attempt was made to interfere 
with the utmost license of speech against the national gov- 
ernment. The assemblage was enthusiastic and cheered for 
peace, Wood, Seymour, McClellan, Governor Parker of 
New Jersey, and especially for Vallandigham. At the head 
of the committee on the address and the resolutions was 
Wood, 4 and he delivered himself in full. The address de- 
clared that the sovereignty of the states was the corner- 
stone of the Democracy; argued that the general govern- 
ment could not coerce states; that even if it had such a 

1 Printed in the Herald, May 14. 

2 Herald, June 4. 

3 Herald, June 1, 4. 
* Herald, May 21. 



3 i8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [518 

power, the exercise thereof was inconsistent with union; 
and that the Democratic party could not sustain such a war. 
Attacking the Regency leaders without naming them, the 
address said : 

The professed democrat . . . who is deliberately for the war, 
is not a democrat in fact, but an abolitionist of the most rad- 
ical, violent and destructive kind. . . . The war is the curse 
of the age in which we live, . . . The continuance of the war 
will be fatal to our liberties. . . . The only road to democratic 
victory is through peace. Why should politicians fear that a 
peace party may prove unpopular? If the war has damned 
the republican party, is it not logical to suppose that a peace 
policy might prosper the opposition? But this matter is be- 
yond the control of the politicians. The great body of the 
people are tired of the war and demand peace. . . . the war 
cannot succeed. We have been beaten. We cannot conquer 
the South. ... In this connection we must refer to the ludi- 
crous attempts that are made upon every military reverse 
to attribute the result to every other than the true cause. 
When a battle is fought it is generally lost, and then come the 
reasons. . . . We never hear the truth. 

And the position taken by the Democratic members of the 
Legislature in declaring for the prosecution of the war 
according to the constitution, was assailed as illogical. 
The belief was expressed that all love for the Union had 
not been " obliterated from the Southern heart," and that 
the call for peace would find a response. 1 

The resolutions reiterated briefly the sentiments of the 
address and protested " against the cowardly, despotic, in- 
human and accursed act which has consigned to banishment 
the noble tribune of the people — the Honorable Clement L. 
Vallandigham." Moreover, they recommended the suspen- 

1 Printed in the Herald, June 4. 



519] COPPERHEADISM IN NEW YORK 319 

sion of hostilities and the holding of two conventions — 
one of the Confederate states and the other of the states 
still in the Union — to settle the manner of reconciliation. 
A state committee with authority to call any future conven- 
tions of the peace Democracy was appointed. At the same 
time they disclaimed any intention of distracting the Demo- 
cratic organization of New York. Letters from distin- 
guished peace advocates of other states, including ex- 
Governor Thomas H. Seymour of Connecticut, James W. 
Wall of New Jersey, and George H. Pendleton of Ohio, 
were then read. The principal speaker was, of course, 
Fernando Wood; while among the lesser attractions were 
George Francis Train, two former martyrs in Fort Lafay- 
ette, and some of those who had spoken at the Vallandig- 
ham meeting. The leading men of the party were again 
conspicuous by their absence. The speeches were a mix- 
ture of denunciation of the war, disrespectful attacks upon 
the President and upon the measures of the administration, 
incitement to resist violently any encroachment upon the 
liberties of the people, and thinly veiled hints of forcible 
opposition to the impending draft. 1 Thus, in the discon- 
tent of a certain element, Wood found a club to use against 
Tammany and the Regency. 2 

1 Herald, June 4 ; Tribune, June 4. 

2 The Daily News openly threatened that unless " Cagger, Richmond 
& Co's State Convention distinctly adopt the platform of Peace," the 
committee appointed in New York City on the 3rd of June would call 
a separate state convention (quoted by the Argus, June 9). 



CHAPTER XII 

Seymour on Trial 

With the invasion of Pennsylvania and the bringing of 
the war nearer to New York, the peace advocates received 
a setback. 1 To his credit, Governor Seymour responded 
promptly to the telegram from Washington calling for 
twenty thousand militia to help repel Lee. 2 The withdrawal 
of the militia from New York City was followed by the 
Draft Riot on the 13th of July and the succeeding days. 
The direct connection of this outbreak with the denuncia- 
tions of the so-called conscription act 3 by Democratic lead- 
ers, including Seymour himself, and with the revolutionary 
remarks at the peace demonstrations engineered by Fer- 
nando Wood, is apparent. The mischief of those seditious 
speeches had borne fruit. Seymour's actions during the 
disturbance and his correspondence with the Washington 
authorities in regard to the draft became later a subject of 
political controversy. The drafting in New York City 
began on a Saturday; on Monday the mob broke out into 
violence; and on Tuesday Seymour, who had been at Long 

1 Herald, June 18, for effect of the invasion upon the peace movement. 

! Herald, June 16. 

3 The correct title of the law authorizing the draft was : "An act for 
enrolling and calling out the national forces." Dix objected to the 
Democratic habit of speaking of the draft as a conscription ; but 
as Fry, the provost marshal general, and other administration supporters 
used the term, it is adopted here as a less cumbersome designa- 
tion of the law than the real title. 
' 320 [520 



52 1 ] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 321 

Branch, New Jersey, arrived on the scene. He found wide- 
spread consternation. The radicals wanted energetic repres- 
sion. The leaders of Mozart Hall, it was said, urged the 
Governor to make a stand for the State against the national 
government. 1 Seymour at once assumed command, and 
did, according to his light, what he could to reestablish 
order. 

He followed, however, the method of conciliation rather 
than that of repression, urging the rioters to cease their un- 
lawful actions. He issued two proclamations. 2 One re- 
minded those who had resorted to violence " under an appre- 
hension of injustice " that the only permissible opposition to 
the draft was an appeal to the courts. " Riotous proceed- 
ings," he proclaimed, " must and shall be put down. The 
laws of the State of New York must be enforced, its peace 
and order maintained, and the lives and property of all its 
citizens protected at any and every hazard." And the Gover- 
nor threatened that unless the rioters retired to their homes 
and employments, he would use all the power necessary to 
restore tranquillity to the City. The second proclamation 
declared the City to be in a state of insurrection — an act 
of wisdom, since it permitted the complete and legal use of 
the military, the only power capable of suppressing the dis- 
turbance. Of course, the Unionist press did not fail to 
point out that the Governor had not announced that the 
laws of the United States must and would be enforced. Ap- 
pended to one of the proclamations was a request that loyal 
citizens should enroll at designated places to aid in preserv- 
ing peace. This idea was carried out. 

In the City Hall Park, the Governor addressed an excited 
crowd, composed in part of riotous elements, as " my 

1 Herald, July 24, 28. 

2 Printed in the Tribune, July 15. 



322 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [522 

friends;" and this rather harmless method of gaining the 
good-will of the mob was seized upon by the radical press, 
interpreted in the most literal sense, and for months made 
the basis for such assertions as that " the State authorities, 
in the person of Governor Seymour, assumed the leadership 
of the riot at first." 1 In truth, the weakness of the military 
forces at hand justified temporizing until reinforcements ar- 
rived. But if these words of salutation did not make Sey- 
mour the traitorous governor that some of the newspapers 
described, his sympathetic attitude toward the alleged griev- 
ances of the rioters deserves condemnation. It appears very 
probable that the Governor's mildness did little good. 2 His 
course was perfectly consistent with his character; by no 
means disloyal, but showing gentleness where vigor and 
determination were requisite; censuring unlawful deeds, 
but haggling over constitutional rights at a most inoppor- 
tune time. The radicals later accused the Governor of hav- 
ing purposely denuded the City of militia so as to give an 
opportunity for the riot which in turn was to lead to revolu- 
tion, and of having backed down when the moment to strike 
came. 3 Lincoln received letters setting forth this theory of 
a Democratic conspiracy and implicating Seymour. But 
Lincoln did not believe the absurd story, and his biogra- 
phers admit that there was in fact no foundation for it. 4 

1 Tribune, July 18. 

2 Seymour in his annual message of 1864 said: "On the third day 
it [the riot] became one of the most destructive riots ever known in 
the history of our country. . . . The return of some of the New York 
militia regiments secured peace to the city" (Lincoln's Messages from 
the Governors, v, pp. 547, 549). 

3 E. g. Tribune, July 18, 24, Aug. 29 ; Independent, quoted by the 
Argus, July 25. 

4 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, p. 26. 



523] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 323 

Such a course was irreconcilable with Seymour's disposi- 
tion and official actions. 

On the other hand, the radical press was accused of foment- 
ing an incendiary condition of affairs to increase the disturb- 
ance and by forcing a collision between the state and federal 
authorities to procure a declaration of marital law and a mili- 
tary governor who would control future elections. 1 Imme- 
diately after the outbreak of the riot, the metropolitan press 
became engaged in a controversy as to who had provoked 
the affair. The Tribune, the Times, and the Post were 
arrayed against the World, the News, and the Express, 
while the Herald berated both sides. The administration 
papers rightly attributed blame for the riot to the Copper- 
heads, and also accused the Democratic papers of encour- 
aging the rioters. 2 The World retorted : " We charge it, 
therefore, plainly against the radical journals of this city 
that they, and chiefly they, have educated the people of New 
York to the pitch of passion and the extremes of desperate 
feeling which have gleamed out so luridly ... in these last 
sad days." 3 In the very midst of the riot, the World and 
the News assailed the conscription act and its execution.* 
The more moderate of these, the World, said of the law: 
"A measure which could not have been ventured upon in 
England even in those dark days when the press-gang filled 
the English ships of war with slaves . . . was thrust into 
the statute book as one might say almost by force." 

With the exception of a small outbreak at Troy, good or- 
der prevailed up the State during the drafting. 5 In some 

1 Argus, July 25 ; Herald, July 28. 

2 Editorials quoted in the Herald, July 16. 

3 New York World, July 15. 

4 New York World, July 13 ; New York News, quoted in the Tribune, 
July 15. 

5 Tribune, July 17; Albany Evening Journal, July 16. The letters of 



324 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [524 

cases, those upon whom the lot fell paraded the streets and 
cheered for the Union. 

The riot suppressed and General Dix in command at New 
York City, the question whether the draft would be en- 
forced became all engrossing. The disloyal journals kept 
demanding that the law should not be executed and that 
Seymour should redeem his promises. The Express de- 
clared that the Governor was pledged to call forth the 
entire militia of the State to resist the kidnaping of its 
citizens. 1 The News endorsed this, saying :" Governor 
Seymour has pledged his sacred word and honor, . . . 
that not one single drafted citizen shall be forced away from 
the State until the constitutionality of the Conscription Act 
shall have been decided upon by our Courts." 2 Again it 
said: 

. . . the masses must rely upon themselves and their State 
magistrates for protection. While the Judiciary remains firm 
and honest, and the Gubernatorial authority sustains the Judi- 
ciary, the 500,000 bayonets of despotism will not prevail. But 
there must be no wild exhibitions of passion, no rioting, no 
wasting of precious strength. Opposition to central tyranny 
will be most effective when conducted according to legal 
formula, and under the direction of the constituted State 
authorities. . . . There is ample provision in our Constitu- 
tion and our Statutes to clothe with legality resistance to op- 
pression. If Governor Seymour will use the powers where- 
with he is invested, they will be found sufficient for either 
moral or physical protection of State Government and indi- 

the provost marshals (Offi.cial Records, ser. iii, vol. iii, pp. 516, 528), speak 
of opposition in Albany and Utica; yet the Albany Evening Journal 
(July 20) said that Albany had seldom been more quiet and orderly 
than during that week and that there were no signs of disturbance. 

1 New York Express, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 7. 

s New York News, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 7. 



525] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 325 

vidual liberty. The only danger then exists in a possible weak- 
ness and infirmity of purpose in our Governor. 1 

The Metropolitan Record published a still more inflamma- 
tory article entitled, " What the People of New York Ex- 
pect of Governor Seymour." 2 The World used a very thin 
disguise, saying: 

It is now at length evident to all but the wilfully blind, that 
the rescue of the constitution from the hands of its official vio- 
lators requires a vigorous and determined struggle. The pre- 
cise measures to be adopted for this purpose must depend, in 
part, upon future contingencies; and there is needed the 
greatest wisdom and caution, as well as pluck and resolution, 
that the effort may not miscarry by irretrievable false steps 
and precipitate action. 8 

On the other hand, when, upon the arrival of troops, 
Seymour ordered that the weapons lent to citizens who had 
volunteered to aid in preserving peace should be returned, 
the Tribune was indignant, and advised them to pur- 
chase arms. 4 Again it said: "Well, if Civil War must 
come, let it come! If the Copperhead chiefs in the North 
envy the fame or the fortunes of their Southern brethren, 
we have no choice but to meet the issue they force upon 
us." 5 The administration papers kept urging the govern- 
ment to proceed with the draft. The Democrats advocated 
abandoning conscription and renewed resort to volunteering. 

Democratic common councils and boards of super- 

1 New York News, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 14. 

2 Metropolitan Record, quoted in the Tribune, Aug. 14. 

3 New York World, Aug. II. 
* Tribune, July 21. 

5 Tribune, Aug. 12. 



326 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [526 

visors showed a tendency to get around the law by appro- 
priating money to pay the commutation fee of those drafted, 
on the ground that the three-hundred-dollar clause was 
the part of the act obnoxious to the poorer classes who 
felt it to be partial and unjust, and that by purchasing 
such exemptions future disturbances would be averted. Of 
course, such a proceeding, since it would furnish no men 
for the army, was contrary to the intent of the law. New 
York City had a Republican-Unionist mayor, Opdyke; and 
he promptly vetoed an ordinance providing for such pay- 
ments, which had been introduced and adopted by the Com- 
mon Council during the outbreak. Opdyke rightly declared 
that the measure was " calculated to nullify the law against 
which riotous resistance was made " and that it was " a 
price offered to a lawless mob to desist from further as- 
saults upon the lives and property of our citizens." x Fin- 
ally, the matter was compromised by the appropriation of 
money to procure substitutes for drafted firemen, policemen, 
active members of the militia, and indigent citizens having 
dependent families. In this way, for every one drafted, 
some one was mustered into service. 2 In Brooklyn, the ef- 
forts of the Democrats to pass an ordinance appropriating 
money to purchase exemptions was balked by the banks, 
which, controlled by administration supporters, declined to 
take the loan wherewith the necessary funds were to be ob- 
tained. 3 In Westchester County, attempts were made under 
the lead of John B. Haskin to get through the Board of 

1 Herald, July 21, 28, Aug. 20. 

5 Herald, Aug. 29; but it was provided that in case such substitutes 
or any of them could not be procured within the required time, the 
three hundred dollars for the classes enumerated was to be paid to 
the government. 

3 Herald, Sept. 3. 



527] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 327 

Supervisors such an appropriation, 1 and some up-State 
localities passed acts for that purpose. 2 

Meanwhile, the President had been appealed to by the 
Governor to suspend the draft until a letter on which he 
was working should reach Washington. 8 Under date of 
August 3rd, Seymour sent the promised epistle to Lincoln. 4 
In the first place, he declared that the enrolment was 
decidedly unfair and partisan. " Justice and prudence 
alike," the Governor wrote, " demand that this lottery for 
life shall be conducted with the utmost fairness and open- 
ness." A draft ought not, he said, to be executed " in any 
spirit of resentment." He claimed that the amount of credit 
allowed by the Provost Marshal General for troops in ex- 
cess already raised by New York was far too small. The 
quotas apportioned to the congressional districts in New 
York City and Kings County were " glaringly unjust," 
either because of a padded enrolment in those districts or 
because of a grossly deficient enrolment in the rest of the 
State. Seymour cited the Fourth Congressional District, 
which with a population of 131,854 had a quota of 5,881, 
while the Fifteenth Congressional District with 132,232 
inhabitants was called upon for only 2,260 men. 5 From 
these and other figures, the Governor concluded that the 

1 Herald, July 24. 

2 The Common Council of Rochester passed such an ordinance 
{Tribune, July 22) ; so did that of Troy {Argus, Sept. 8). See also 
the chapter on the Legislative Session of 1864, infra. 

3 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, p. 32. 
* Printed in full in the Herald, Aug. 10. 

5 In a later letter of August 8th, printed in the Herald, Aug. II, he 
asserted that nine Democratic districts in i860 whose total vote in that 
year was 151,243 were to furnish 33,729 men, while nineteen Repub- 
lican districts, whose vote in i860 was 457,257, were to supply but 
39,626. 



328 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [528 

" inequalities fall most heavily upon those districts which 
have been opposed to its [the administration's] political 
views." The abandonment of voluntary enlistment for 
conscription would prove, the Governor thought, " unfor- 
tunate as a policy, nor would it secure either so many or 
so effective men " as the volunteer system. He therefore 
asked that the execution of the draft in New York State 
be suspended until the results of recruiting there should be 
learned. Then Seymour made a more preposterous re- 
quest — that the law providing for the draft be not executed 
until its constitutionality could be judicially determined. 
" It is believed by at least one-half of the people of the loyal 
States," he said, 

that the Conscription act, which they are called upon to obey 
because it stands upon the statute book, is in itself a violation 
of the supreme constitutional law. ... In the minds of the 
American people the duty of obedience and the right of pro- 
tection are inseparable. . . . This government and our peopie 
have more to fear from an acquiescence in the disorganizing 
teachings that war suspends their legal rights or destroys 
their legal remedy than they have to fear from resistance to 
the doctrine that measures can be enforced without regard 
to the decisions of judicial tribunals. . . . The successful 
execution of the Conscription act depends upon the settlement 
by judicial tribunals of its constitutionality. ... A refusal 
to submit it to this test will be regarded as evidence that it 
wants legality and binding force. ... It would be a cruei 
mockery to withhold such decision until after the irremediable 
injury of its execution upon those who are unable to pay the 
sum demanded in lieu of their persons. ... I do not dwell 
upon what I believe would be the consequence of a violent, 
harsh policy before the constitutionality of the act is tested. 
You can scan the immediate future as well as I. The temper 
of the people you can readily learn by consulting, as I have 



529] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 329 

done, with men of all political parties and of every profession 
and occupation. 

This constitutional homily was thoroughly characteristic 
of Seymour. Denouncing in the beginning of his letter vio- 
lence, his legal subtilties had brought him at the end to 
what amounted to an apology for resistance to the law. 

In reply, the President temporarily reduced the quotas 
in the districts complained of to the average required 
from the remainder of the State. Further, he promised to 
have the first mentioned districts " carefully reenrolled — 
and, if you please, agents of yours may witness every step 
of that process." Any deficiency shown by the new enrol- 
ment was to be made good by a special draft, and due credit 
would be given for volunteers. But of course the Presi- 
dent, pointing out the urgent need of obtaining recruits im- 
mediately, refused to suspend the draft as requested. 1 

Seymour's letters to the President constituted in some 
respects a more partisan performance than anything of 
which complaint was made; and coming as they did when 
the riot was barely suppressed, they deserve severe con- 
demnation. It might be thought that the sincerity of the 
Governor and the great pressure upon him from a certain 
element of the Democratic party and press to ward off in 
some manner the draft should excuse him from this judg- 
ment. A letter, however, written by him to Tilden, under 
date of August 6th, affords a key to his actions. He re- 
cognizes therein that forcible resistance would aid rather 
than embarrass the national government. But he thinks 
that " the conscription will make the administration odious 
and contemptible." He states that he has just sent to the 
President a communication objecting to the draft, and 

1 Lincoln's Works (Gettysburg Edition), ix, pp. 58-61; 69-70. 



330 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [530 

adds regarding this letter, " It will do no good, except mak- 
ing up a record." x This, then, was the aim of Seymour's 
lengthy correspondence with Lincoln — to make a record. 

The Governor's main contentions were: first, that the 
quota allotted to New York State should be reduced by about 
forty-two thousand because of excess troops furnished on 
previous calls; second, that within the State the quotas as- 
signed to the different congressional districts were dispro- 
portionate, that the inequalities were partisan, to the dis- 
advantage of Democratic districts, and that the cities of 
New York and Brooklyn, far from being deficient in pre- 
vious calls, had furnished more than their share; third, that 
in the cities, where the Democratic party was the stronger, 
men had been enrolled more than once; fourth, that the 
execution of the law providing for a draft should be post- 
poned until a judicial decision as to its constitutionality 
could be obtained; and fifth, that the volunteer system 
should again be relied upon since it furnished more troops 
than drafting. 

Perhaps the first contention had some foundation. By 
the subsequent adjudication of a commission appointed by 
the President, New York State was credited with more than 
thirteen thousand men. 2 For this, Seymour received the 
unanimous thanks of the Assembly of 1864, a majority of 
whom were politically opposed to him. 3 He certainly saved 
the State and also the local districts a large sum which other- 
wise would have been spent in bounties. But it should be 

1 Bigelow's Letters and Literary Memorials of Samuel J. Tilden, i, 
p. 184. 

2 Message of Seymour to the Legislature, (Lincoln's Messages from 
the Governor, v, pp. 571-4). According to a subsequent report of the 
Assembly committee on federal relations, the reduction numbered but 
12,500 {Herald, April 18). 

3 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1148. 



53 1 ] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 33 1 

noted that two of the three members of the commission were 
Democrats, one being William F. Allen, his party's nominee 
for judge of the Court of Appeals in this very year and for 
lieutenant-governor in i860, and an intimate friend of Sey- 
mour. Moreover, in arriving at the decision, the terms of 
the law as to the adjustment of quotas were absolutely 
ignored. 1 The reduction was made upon the theory that 
population (for which the census of i860 had to be used) 
should be the basis of the quotas. This not merely disre- 
garded the shifting of population since i860 but laid a 
lesser burden upon districts which had been slack in fur- 
nishing recruits than on those which by raising large num- 
bers of volunteers had reduced the proportion of their adult 
males of drafting age. 2 The days following the riot were, 
at any rate, not the most suitable time for pressing this 
claim. 

As to the second and third contentions, the enrolment was 
far from perfect, as was shown later. This, however, was 
to be expected under the circumstances. The reputation 
of Provost Marshal General Fry for honesty and ability was 
high. His assistants in New York were chosen with care 
and were directed to cooperate with the state and local 
authorities. 3 According to Fry's report, 4 the work was 
done very carefully, all possible precautions were taken, 
and the enrolling officers were sworn to execute their duties 
faithfully. 5 Moreover, Seymour had never expressed any 

1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, pp. 40, 41 ; Fry's New York 
and the Conscription of 1863, p. 51. 

2 Fry's New York and the Conscription, pp. 40, 55. 

3 Fry's New York and the Conscription, pp. 13-17. 
* Printed in the Tribune, Aug. 17. 

5 The commission subsequently appointed to examine and correct the 
inequalities exonerated the enrolling officers from any impeachment 
of their integrity and stated that the errors could not possibly have 



332 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [532 

objection to the enrolment until after the riot. 1 Then too, 
it was shown that the enrolment in the congressional district 
most complained of by the Governor — the Fourth — differed 
little from that made by the State in the previous year. 2 
While Seymour's statistics at first glance are somewhat con- 
vincing, and probably were very much so to the anti-adminis- 
tration reader of war days, the Governor ignored the facts 
that large numbers of adult males were constantly coming 
from the country districts to the metropolis, that the popula- 
tion of New York City and Brooklyn was rapidly increasing 
from immigration, and that a great many of the troops sent 
from these localities were nine months men whereas the up- 
State districts had mostly sent two and three years men. 
Even such of the long-term regiments as were raised in New 
York City were largely filled with men from the interior 
counties. 3 He overlooked that districts which had been 

been avoided ; nor could the commission suggest a better method of 
enrolment {Herald, April 18; Fry's New York and the Conscription, 
P- 50). 

1 Fry's New York and the Conscription, p. 32. 

2 Report of Fry, Tribune, Aug. 17. 

s One three years man was counted by the government as equivalent 
to four nine months men. As for regiments nominally raised in 
New York City but filled with recruits from up- State, see the figures 
given in the Tribune, Aug. 15. According to that journal, these 
facts were ignored by the Governor, by his adjutant-general, Sprague 
(Report of Sprague printed in the Tribune, Aug. 20), and by the 
judge-advocate general, Waterbury (Report printed in the Herald, 
Aug. 13). Waterbury, by crediting New York City with the entire 
regiments whose headquarters during enlistment had been there or in 
the vicinity, produced figures showing that New York City had fur- 
nished thousands in excess of its quotas. While Sprague admitted that 
this was not correct, he balanced however the men drawn from up- 
State by enlistments made by the New England States and New Jersey 
in New York City. Sprague's figures of the men raised by New 
York City under the third and fourth calls differ from those 



533] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 333 

foremost in volunteering would naturally show a smaller 
number of men of military age in proportion to the popula- 
tion in i860 or the vote in that year than districts which had 
been backward. 

Previous to the next draft, a circular of November, 1863, 
directed that the boards of enrolment display in at least 
five places in each district printed alphabetical lists of those 
enrolled, with their residences, and that any one on the 
lists might appear before a board up to the 20th of Decem- 
ber to show that on account of alienage, non-residence, 
age or disability he was not liable to military duty. 1 If this 
circular seems to justify to some extent the complaints of 
Seymour, it likewise shows a disposition on the part of the 
Washington authorities to satisfy the Governor where prac- 
ticable. The difficulty of avoiding double enrolment was 
shown by the indifference of those most interested in having 
their names stricken from the rolls when an opportunity to 
do so was given. 2 Seymour, apparently, never made the 
slightest use of Lincoln's offer that the Governor's agents 
might witness every step in the process of making another 
enrolment in the disputed districts. 

The enrolment, then, was probably very faulty, but not 
intentionally so for partisan purposes, and perhaps not to 
the degree insisted upon by Seymour. 

furnished by Waterbury; and both are greatly in excess of those given 
by the report of Adjutant-General Hillhouse {Tribune, Aug. 20). In 
a subsequent statement, Sprague admitted that a large number of the 
excess which he had credited to New York City must be deducted 
for men drawn from other parts of the State ; thereby, he reduced 
New York City's alleged excess by about one-half {Tribune, Aug. 29). 

1 Herald, Nov. 28. 

2 See Seymour's proclamation of Nov. 21, 1864 (printed in the 
Tribune, Nov. 25, 1864) and the appeal of the New York County Com- 
mittee on Volunteering of Dec. 1, 1864 {Tribune, Dec. 29, 1864). 



334 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [534 

The delaying of the draft until its constitutionality could 
be judicially determined was not only highly inexpedient, 
but also wholly without legal warrant. The Supreme 
Court would not meet until the following December, and 
more time must necessarily elapse before a decision was 
rendered. In the meanwhile, where would the much needed 
reinforcements be obtained? By volunteering, urged Sey- 
mour; by conscription, the government would not get 
many men besides substitutes who were really, he claimed, 
volunteers. But this argument was in total disregard 
of facts. It was notorious that volunteering had almost 
ceased. 1 In reality, nothing but an impending draft 
stimulated both volunteering and substituting. It was then 
that the cities and counties bestirred themselves and offered 
large bounties. The armies must be recruited if the war 
was to be brought to a successful conclusion, drafting was 
the only method of getting sufficient men at that stage 
of the struggle, and therefore Seymour can hardly be ac- 
quitted either of being blind to the most patent facts or else 
of disregarding them for partisan reasons. He certainly 
did not have the sagacity to rise above the mass of his party 
by recognizing in the law for drafting a necessary experi- 
ment whose imperfections might be corrected, but which be- 
cause of the exigency must be tried without delay. His atti- 
tude was captious and seriously embarrassing to the govern- 

1 This fact was admitted by the Argus in April : " Their [the peo- 
ple's] practical answer to these questions is to be found in the total ab- 
sence of all offers of volunteers or recruits . . ." {Argus, April 3, 
1864). See also on this point of the cessation of volunteering in New 
York the report of the Adjutant-General of New York, dated Dec. 31, 
1862 (quoted in Fry's New York and the Conscription, p. 4) ; letter of 
August Belmont to Weed printed in Barnes's Memoir of Weed, p. 421 ; 
Burt's My Memoirs of the Military History of the State of New 
York, pp. 118, 133; and many statements in the press at the time. 



535] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 335 

ment. He showed anything but a disposition to ensure har- 
mony with the authorities at Washington for the sake of the 
common cause; and his correspondence, published in the 
newspapers, justified in their own minds the disloyal ele- 
ments who were striving to bring about a collision between 
the state and federal governments. Lincoln's answers to 
Seymour on the other hand were eminently tactful, conced- 
ing all that could justly be asked. 

Despite the Governor's wordy appeals, the draft took place 
in due time. On July 30th, General Dix, in command of 
the national forces at New York, wrote to Seymour to in- 
quire whether the aid of the state militia might be relied on 
in enforcing the law. Seymour answered that he had just 
written to the President, and that he believed that the lat- 
ter's reply would relieve them both from " the painful ques- 
tions growing out of an armed enforcement of the Con- 
scription law in this patriotic State." On August 8th, Dix 
again wrote to the Governor, requesting the earliest prac- 
ticable assurance that the militia would, in case of need, 
assist in carrying out the draft; otherwise the General 
would call upon the authorities at Washington for an ade- 
quate force. Dix also included in his letter a brief but 
dignified defense of the law. Seymour's reply, inexcusably 
delayed, was utterly unworthy, considering the circum- 
stances. He stated that he had received the President's an- 
swer apprising him of the government's determination to 
proceed with the draft; as to the position of the state 
officials in case of popular resistance, the Governor said : 

Of course, under no circumstance, can they perform duties 
expressly to relieve others from their proper responsibilities. 
But there can be no violations of good order, no riotous pro- 
ceedings, no disturbances of public peace, which are not in- 
fractions of the laws of the State, and these laws will be en- 



336 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [536 

forced under all circumstances ... if need be the military 
power will be called into requisition. . . . 1 

In other words, Seymour said that if a riot should break 
out, he would, if necessary, use the militia to suppress it; 
but that they should not be used to execute the draft, 
and that the national government would have to depend 
upon its own agencies for that purpose. That meant the 
withdrawal of United States troops from the front at a 
most critical period. This was done, and General Dix was 
able to reply to the Governor that he would be ready to 
meet all opposition to the draft. But it was at the cost of 
retarding army operations. 2 How differently these two 
men, Dix and Seymour, both Democrats, appear in this cor- 
respondence ! 

On August 1 8th, the Governor issued a proclamation 
warning all persons against violent resistance to the laws, 
again declaring as in his previous proclamation that the only 
opposition to the conscription which could be allowed was 
" an appeal to the courts," and admonishing all judicial and 
executive officers " to take vigorous and effective measures 
to put down any riotous or unlawful assemblages," if neces- 
sary calling upon the militia. 3 Even here, however, the Gov- 
ernor did not refrain from reiterating his belief in the im- 
policy of drafting before securing a judicial decision on 
the constitutionality of the law, and he comforted the ill- 
disposed by declaring that the constitution and the statutes 
of the State and the nation contained ample remedies for 
any real or imaginary wrong. He continued by mail and 

1 Correspondence between Dix and Seymour, printed in the Herald, 
Aug. 29. 

2 Order of Halleck to Meade ; letter of Meade to Halleck, quoted in 
Fry's New York and the Conscription, pp. 83, 84. 

* Printed in the Tribune, Aug. 19. 



537] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 337 

telegraph his protests to the Washington government, and 
so long as he remained in office ceased not in his warfare 
against the draft. 1 

Seymour's conduct in the whole matter was justly made 
a subject of attack by his political opponents. When the 
Union State Convention met at Utica on September 2nd, 
Weed was absent, and his followers were accordingly led 
by Raymond. Greeley was present, while Opdyke marshalled 
the radical forces on the convention floor. The Weed-Sew- 
ard men were more numerous than a year ago when the rad- 
ical faction had had its way. 2 There was, however, a deter- 
mined effort to prevent any outbreak of differences between 
the two wings of the party. 3 Accordingly, as soon as the 
convention was called to order, Opdyke moved that a recess 
be taken to afford time for further conferences that harmon- 
ious action might be brought about. Raymond seconded 
the motion, and it was carried with the support of both sides. 
As a result, when the convention again met, the organiza- 
tion was effected without any contest, the temporary chair- 
manship going to a radical, Ward Hunt, and the presidency 
to Abram Wakeman, a Weed adherent. The ticket like- 
wise was arranged by an informal committee of both fac- 
tions. This attempt to preserve concord was on the whole 
successful. Colonel Peter A. Porter was nominated for 
secretary of state, Thomas W. Olcott for controller, 
George W. Schuyler for state treasurer, and Henry R. 
Selden for judge of the Court of Appeals. It was felt that 
a War Democrat ought to have the nomination for attorney- 
general, following the precedent of two years before; and 

1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, pp. 38, 43. 

2 Herald, Sept. 1. 

3 Herald, Sept. 2 ; Tribune, Sept. 3, dispatch signed " H. G." 
(Greeley). 



338 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [538 

accordingly General John Cochrane was given the place. 
But the slate was broken when Benjamin F. Bruce was 
named for canal commissioner, W. B. Taylor for state 
engineer, and James K. Bates for inspector of state prisons. 1 
Of course, no overtures such as had been made to the Demo- 
crats in 1 86 1 and 1862 were attempted now. 

The resolutions, as reported by the committee headed by 
Raymond, recognized the supreme duty of laying aside party 
differences and cordially supporting the government in its 
efforts to suppress the rebellion. They favored a prompt 
and effective reenforcement of the Union armies. They 
condemned as 

unpatriotic and unfaithful to the loyal sentiment of the State 
. . . the action of its present Governor, and of those who 
have acted with him in embarrassing the efforts of the gov- 
ernment to increase its military force, in stimulating a spirit 
of violent resistance to the laws of the land, and in encour- 
aging the horrible outrages upon the peace and order of 
society, and upon the persons and property of unoffending 
citizens, which recently have disgraced the city of New York. 

Further, the resolutions pronounced against any proffer of 
peace to the states in rebellion other than such as was " em- 
bodied in the constitution of the United States, under which 
they can at any time resume their place in the American 
Union, subject only to such pains and penalties as they may 
have incurred by a violation of its laws ; . . . ' The ad- 
ministration of Lincoln, and particularly its financial policy, 
its diplomatic achievements, and its victories in war were 
commended. Along with the customary thanks to those in 
the army and navy, the action of Governor Seymour and 
his supporters in the late Legislature in regard to the sol- 
diers' voting bill was branded as unpatriotic, invidious, and 
1 Herald, Sept. 3 ; Tribune, Sept. 3. 



539] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 339 

unjust. These resolutions were unanimously adopted, but 
some of the radical delegates were not satisfied. One of 
them offered an additional resolution declaring that the 
Emancipation Proclamation demanded " from all loyal men 
a cordial endorsement, and from this Convention an em- 
phatic approval." This proposal met with opposition. 
Mr. Raymond said that the assemblage was a Union and 
not a Republican convention, and that many loyal men 
doubted the propriety of endorsing the proclamation. A 
motion to lay on the table the suggested resolution was 
lost. Finally, the matter was compromised by an amend- 
ment inserting the words, " and as a war measure thor- 
oughly legal and justifiable," after which the resolution was 
adopted. 1 

In the new Union State Committee, anti-Weed members 
were in several instances displaced by Weed men, and the 
organization of the committee passed into the latter's 
hands. 2 Subsequently, Porter and Olcott declined to run, 
greatly to the joy of the Democrats. 8 The Union State 
Committee filled the vacancies with Chauncey M. Depew, 
who as chairman of the committee of ways and means had 
distinguished himself in the last assembly and had been 
Porter's rival in the convention, and Lucius Robinson, whose 
renomination was a sop to the anti-Weed men. 4 The day 

1 Herald, Sept. 3. 

2 Herald, Sept. 9; Argus, Sept. 4; a partial confirmation is given 
by the insistence of the Albany Statesman (strongly anti-Weed) that 
the state committee could not fill any vacancies in the ticket. Henry 
R. Low, who belonged to the anti-Weed faction, was displaced as 
chairman, being succeeded by Charles Jones. 

3 The Argus kept gloating over these declinations, e. g. editorial of 
Sept. 10. 

* Herald, Sept. 9 ; partly confirmed by an editorial of the Albany 
Statesman (anti-Weed) in which the passing over of Dickinson and 
Robinson is bitterly assailed (quoted in the Argus, Sept. 5). 



340 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [540 

after the convention, in accordance with the recommenda- 
tion of the Union State Committee, 1 a mass ratification 
meeting of loyal young men took place. The gathering 
was large and enthusiastic, and endorsed the sentiments and 
candidates of the Union State Convention. 2 

The Democratic State Convention assembled at Albany 
on September 9th. The question of New York County's 
representation was complicated this year by the fact that to 
the usual delegations from Tammany and Mozart was added 
a third one sent by a new organization led by John McKeon. 
That the up-State men would have been glad to seat all of 
these contestants 3 was shown by the passage of a resolution, 
despite Tammany's opposition, requesting the delegations 
from New York City to withdraw for consultation with a 
view to uniting. 4 Tammany, in the face of a new revolt 
of threatening proportions, quietly divided power with 
Mozart. It was agreed that each of the two delegations 
should cast eight votes and alternately a ninth. Tammany 
so reported to the convention, and also that in this matter 
she could not recognize any other organization than Mozart ; 
and the latter announced that she could recognize none other 
than Tammany. The previous question being ordered, 
this arrangement was ratified by the convention, leaving 
McKeon and his followers in the cold; and they accord- 
ingly withdrew. 5 

At the evening session, Governor Seymour, upon invita- 
tion, addressed the convention. After he had spoken of the 

1 Call of the Union State Committee, Tribune, July 25. 

2 Herald, Sept. 4. 

3 Confirmed by a Herald dispatch on the eve of the convention 
(Herald, Sept. 9) and by the Tribune, Sept. 9. 

* Herald, Sept. 10; Argus, Sept. 10. 
5 Herald, Sept. 10; Argus, Sept. 10. 



541 ] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 341 

duty of maintaining the constitution as the lesson of the war 
and had predicted the inevitable failure of the attempt to 
centralize power to the detriment of the rights of the states, 
he proceeded to discuss the draft and his own connection 
with that event. He reiterated his oft-expressed views 
against the conscription act and in favor of volunteering. 
" Many harsh words and unjust charges," he said, 

have been indulged in by our opponents towards myself; . . . 
I owe it to you to say that I have never sought to embarrass 
the government. Traduced by its friends as I have been, I 
have seen in its many mistakes reason to uphold it, and I have 
sought to direct it in that course, which its own honor, as well 
as the honor of the country, clearly dictates. I have appealed 
with no selfish or partisan object in view to its friends and 
its agents, whenever an opportunity was presented, to avoid 
the errors into which it has fallen. Was it unfriendly to 
warn it of those unfair provisions in this conscription which 
were so plainly calculated to render it objectionable and odious 
to the people ? . . . Whose interest was it that the law should 
be enforced in the fairest and most unobjectionable manner? 
... In all this I have been guided simply and solely by a 
desire to save the government from this great and fatal error. 

Further on, the Governor declared that he had at all times 
sought to sustain the army and that he had neglected no 
opportunity to send succor to New York's men. 

Passing from a defense of his own actions to a consider- 
ation of the future, he stated that while heretofore, in view 
of the military situation, there had been reasons why he 
could not seek peace, 

now our successes enable us to seek it with honor to ourselves 
and satisfaction to the people. . . . The war has reached an- 
other stage in its progress ; and a policy, different from that 
which has been pursued, must be marked out. Shall it be a 



342 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [542 

policy of subjugation — a policy that will strip the States of 
all their rights? Such a policy implies a long and bloody 
war, and an incalculable waste of life and treasure. It . . . 
must result in national bankruptcy and ruin. ... I am not 
disposed to criticise the President's recent letter x unkindly. 
. . . He does not in that letter contemplate an early termina- 
tion of the war, nor does he propose any time when it will 
cease. We, however, are ready to mark out a policy now, and 
that a conciliatory policy, that the States shall return with all 
their rights as marked down in the Constitution. ... To the 
dissolution of the Union I will never consent. I would put 
forth every power, I would exhaust every measure of con- 
ciliation, I would appeal to the interests, the hopes and fears 
of citizens of the South and urge every suggestion which it 
becomes a man to make to bring back the revolted States — 
but as to disunion, I will never consent to that. 2 

But what if all these measures of conciliation failed? The 
question, as usual, was conveniently neither stated nor 
answered. 

On the second day came the adoption of the platform and 
the nominations. Although Fernando Wood was a mem- 
ber of the committee on resolutions, it was headed by a sup- 
porter of the war, Henry C. Murphy; and Wood was un- 
able to prevent the reaffirmation of the resolutions of the 
previous year, including that in favor of the prosecution 
of the war. 3 However, the resolutions of 1863 also de- 
clared in favor of a policy of conciliation and expressed 
regret for the President's late letter, " which, while reiter- 
ating the visionary and unconstitutional emancipation policy, 

1 Lincoln's letter addressed " To Whom it may Concern," setting 
forth conditions of peace; this letter was occasioned by Greeley's 
efforts at Niagara; see Rhodes, History of the United States, iv, p. 514. 

* Seymour's speech is printed in full in the Argus, Sept. 11. 

s Herald, Sept. 10; Argus, Sept. II. 



543] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 343 

contemplating no measure for the restoration of the Union, 
but looking to an indefinite protraction of the war for 
abolition purposes, points to no future but national bank- 
ruptcy and the subversion of our institutions." Touching 
upon reconstruction, they condemned the doctrine " put for- 
ward by the administration — that no seceded State return- 
ing to its allegiance shall be permitted to resume its place in 
the Union until it has conformed to the will of the party in 
power." They further declared that the constitution was 
obligatory upon the government and upon the people in 
time of war as well as in peace. Vallandigham, however, 
was not endorsed. While denouncing all mob violence 
and favoring its suppression at all hazards, the resolutions 
declared that the " abortive results of the recent Conscrip- 
tion act . . . not less unjust, vexatious and oppressive, both 
in its character and manner of execution . . . should ad- 
monish the administration how much wiser it would be to 
place its reliance on the voluntary action of a gallant and 
patriotic people, ..." Finally, the resolutions approved 
the administration of Governor Seymour, and commended 
" his devotion to the interests and dignity of the State, his 
fearless assertion of the rights of the citizen, his fidelity to 
the constitution, . . . [his] energy in promptly sending the 
militia to repel the invasion of . . . Pennsylvania, . . . 
and the vigor which he displayed in putting down a lawless 
and reckless mob." These resolutions went through with- 
out debate and with only one vote against them. 1 

The ticket apparently was a strong one. The nomination 
of D. B. St. John for secretary of state was intended as a 
recognition of the former Bell-Everett men. 2 William F. 

1 Herald, Sept. n. 

2 About fifty persons calling themselves a convention of the Con- 
stitutional Union party met at Albany the day before the assembling 
of the Democratic State Convention, and tried to strike up a bargain 



344 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [544 

Allen, who had been for years on the state Supreme Court 
bench and who had voluntarily relinquished his party's 
nomination for lieutenant-governor in i860 in order to 
make room for one more acceptable to the supporters of 
Breckinridge, was named for judge of the Court of Appeals. 
Sanford E. Church, who had already served as controller 
and lieutenant-governor was now nominated for the former 
office again. Marshall B. Champlain, the nominee for 
attorney-general, had been honored with the same place on 
the Democratic ticket of two years previous. William B. 
Lewis, who though elected by the Unionists had acted with 
the Democrats, was renominated for state treasurer. These 
and the remaining candidates were chosen without any in- 
terruption of the prevailing harmony, after which the con- 
vention adjourned with cheers for McClellan and Seymour. 1 
The campaign was fought in great part upon the same 
issues as that of the previous year. The Democrats again 
pleaded for the constitution, personal liberty, a free press, 
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the constitu- 
tional guarantees of private property; they condemned cen- 
tralization and upheld states' rights; they talked of the per- 
version of the war for abolition purposes, of its conversion 
into a war of subjugation, and of the administration's failure 
to bring it to an end ; they assailed the corruption and the 

with the latter for two places on the ticket. By this time, however, 
it was generally acknowledged that these men had no following. 
The Democratic Convention tabled the request for the endorsement 
of the two names put forth by the Constitutional Union party. In the 
end, however, it was deemed wise to give to the former supporters of 
Bell some recognition? and so St. John was nominated. The Con- 
stitutional Union State Committee accepted this bone ; the two gentle- 
men already nominated by their convention kindly withdrew, and the 
whole Democratic ticket was endorsed (Herald, Sept, 9, 10, 25; 
Argus, Sept. 10, 11, 25). 
1 Herald, Sept. 11; Argus, Sept. 11. 



545] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 345 

incompetency of the government and its generals, the enor- 
mous waste of treasure and blood, the depreciated currency, 
and the national banks. On the other hand, the Unionists 
made the same appeals as before, that patriotic men should 
join in sustaining the administration. They put forth the 
same claims that the Union party was a non-partisan move- 
ment, accused the Democratic leaders of disloyalty or of 
disloyal tendencies, contrasted the attacks of the Democrats 
upon the administration with their tender treatment of the 
rebels, and emphasized the effect which a Democratic vic- 
tory in this State would have in Europe and in the South. 
They defended the administration and its measures — includ- 
ing the Emancipation Proclamation — avowed their inten- 
tion of upholding the government in whatever it did to 
suppress the rebellion, and urged the voters to let the Presi- 
dent feel that the Empire State was behind him. 

The fact that the Democratic platform contained a plank 
favoring peace through conciliation, following a reiteration 
of the resolutions in favor of prosecuting the war adopted 
in 1862, scarcely satisfied the peace extremists, whose lead- 
ing organ, the New York Daily News, openly repudiated the 
platform. This paper noted with satisfaction that at the 
great Democratic mass-meeting in New York City on the 
Saturday before election, no war resolution was passed, and 
said that the peace men could therefore conscientiously vote 
for the Democratic nominees without endorsing a war 
policy. 1 But the World of the same date declared that the 
Democrats of the State had never faltered in their support 
of the war for the restoration of the Union, and that the 
question of peace or war was not involved in the election 
at hand. 2 The speech of Seymour at this same meeting 

1 New York News, quoted by the Tribune, Nov. 3. 

2 New York World, Nov. 2. Replying to the News, the Argus also 
declared that " Seymour was never the candidate of a ' Peace Party ' " 
(Argus, Sept. 19). 



346 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [546 

showed him in the ambiguous role with which his party was 
rightly charged by its opponents. He affirmed that the 
Union must be saved and that he was in favor of prosecut- 
ing the war. But he also said : 

When we obtained such signal victories at Vicksburg and 
Port Hudson all the world thought that this contest was to be 
terminated. . . . We called upon the government ... at this 
moment when every motive of magnanimity, honor and patriot- 
ism demanded it, that they should come forth and offer terms 
to the other party ; . . . Why is it that this war is so strangely 
prolonged ? 

And he answered, to bring about centralization at Wash- 
ington. 1 In truth, the Democrats were attempting to 
carry water on both shoulders; opposing the administra- 
tion yet sustaining its principal undertaking; in favor of 
ending the war, yet claiming that they were for its vigorous 
prosecution; and Seymour's speech only reflected the diffi- 
cult position of the party. The Unionists flatly opposed 
this peace-through-conciliation idea with declarations in 
favor of war to exhaustion. There could be no compromise 
with slavery and with traitors, said one. 2 " Such a peace as 
is worth anything," another averred, " can only be obtained 
by discarding all thoughts of ' conciliation ' and crushing the 
rebellion until it is dead ... we have no alternative but to 
fight it out to the bitter end. We cannot afford to ' pause ' 
or to ' conciliate.' " 3 

As new issues, there were the indemnity clause of the 
act for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus* the 

1 Herald, Nov. I. Similar sentiments are embodied in his speech at 
Buffalo, printed in full in the Argus, Oct. 29. 

2 H. B. Stanton, Herald, Sept. 23. 

8 Lyman Tremain, Herald, Oct. 24. 

4 For this see the Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, p. 256. 



547] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 347 

draft, and the alleged interference of the military in elec- 
tions, all of which were sweepingly condemned by the 
Democrats, while the Unionists defended the first two. But 
above all, the voters were called upon to pass judgment 
upon Seymour's record as governor. Unionist newspapers 
and speakers assailed him for vetoing the soldiers' voting 
bill. They asserted that, after having been elevated to 
power by a pretense of devotion to the war, he had em- 
barrassed the national government; that his actions had 
tended to weaken it and defeat its efforts to suppress the 
rebellion; and that he had prevented the reenforcement of 
the army. They declared that he and other leading Demo- 
crats had misrepresented the conscription act and par- 
ticularly the three-hundred-dollar exemption clause, which 
latter was defended as a provision mitigating the severity 
of the law. They condemned the efforts of Democratic 
local authorities to procure the release of all drafted men 
by paying exemption fees out of public funds. Seymour's 
course toward the rioters was denounced in no mild terms. 
Lyman Tremain, descanting upon the Governor's speech to 
the crowd in City Hall Park, said : 

Here was a scene for the painter! The Governor of this 
powerful State standing before a mob whose hands were red 
with the blood of their murdered victims, alarmed at the storm 
which had been raised, promising to do what he could to give 
them the victory over law — sanctioning by implication the 
miserable notion that the law discriminated between the rich 
and the poor, and pledging himself to raise money to relieve 
them from the effects of the law ! * 

Further, the Unionists made much of Seymour's refusal to 

1 Herald, Oct. 24. The Albany Evening Journal published long edi- 
torials on "Governor Seymour's Friends" (Oct. 9) and "Democracy 
and Mob Law" (Oct. 17). 



348 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [548 

cooperate with General Dix in enforcing the law, and de- 
clared that the Governor's course, by necessitating the with- 
drawal of thousands of men from Meade's army, had en- 
abled Lee to detach reinforcements to Bragg, resulting in 
Rosecrans being driven back. The Democrats in reply 
pointed to the Governor's ready response to Lincoln's pro- 
clamation calling for more troops in the middle of October, 1 
to the 16,000 volunteers raised in New York State during 
Seymour's year of office, 2 and to the militia which he had 
sent to the rescue of Pennsylvania. " The head of the War 
Department," said Judge Amasa Parker, " cannot so soon 
have forgotten the fervent appeals he made to the demo- 
cratic Governor of this State for aid . . . nor the prompt- 
ness with which it was furnished, nor the profusion of his 
thankfulness expressed to Governor Seymour upon that 
occasion." s 

A noteworthy fact about the campaign was the general 
substitution of the name " Union " for the old party ap- 
pellation " Republican." The state convention was sum- 
moned under the name " Union," and was so denomi- 
nated by the party orators. Administration supporters 
called their ratification meetings " Union " meetings, their 
county conventions " Union " conventions, their party jour- 

1 Under date of Oct. 20, Seymour issued a proclamation supporting 
the President's call and appealing to the people of New York to 
give " prompt and voluntary assistance " so as to avoid a draft 
(Printed in the Herald, Oct. 21). 

2 The Tribune (Oct. 9) claimed that of the troops raised by New 
York State during the first six months of Seymour's administration, 
less than 3,000 had been raised by him, the rest being obtained with- 
out his intervention by United States officers. 

3 Herald, Oct. 22. See also Seymour's Buffalo speech (Argus, Oct. 
29) and his Syracuse speech (Argus, Oct. 30) for the same defense ; 
also various Argus editorials, e. g. Oct. 15, 20. 



549] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 349 

nals the " Union " press, and their candidates the " Union " 
nominees. Moreover, the Republican Central Committee of 
New York City in September formally changed its name to 
the Union Central Committee, and the various ward asso- 
ciations followed suit. 1 In the spring of 1862, the Albany 
Evening Journal classified the results of the town elec- 
tions for the most part under the headings " Republican " 
and " Democrat;" only in a few cases, did it use the desig- 
nation " Union." In February and March, 1863, however, 
this paper adopted for the same purpose the terms "Republi- 
can-Union " and " Democrat." In 1864, it used only the 
names " Union " and " Democrat." Similar changes took 
place in the vocabulary of its editorials. The Democrats, 
nevertheless, generally persisted in calling their adversaries 
Republicans. 

1863 was an off year in New York State. No gov- 
ernor was to be voted for, nor would the legislature then 
chosen elect in the ordinary course of events a United 
States senator. But the campaign was felt to be a sort 
of preparatory test for the presidential struggle of the 
next year. The Democrats apparently imported no dis- 
tinguished men from without the State, their stump speak- 
ers being mainly New Yorkers — Seymour, ex-Governor 
Hunt, Judge Parker, Oakey Hall, James Brooks, James 
S. Thayer, Darius A. Ogden, Eli P. Norton, and Gilbert 
Dean. The Unionists, on the other hand, brought into 
requisition the most prominent men of their party, not only 
from this State but from the North generally. Thus 
Unionist meetings were addressed by Vice-President Ham- 
lin; Governors Yates, Curtin, and Andrew; ex-Governors 
Lane of Indiana, Boutwell of Massachusetts, and Randall of 

1 Various advertisements of the different ward associations in the 
Tribune, Oct. 5. 



350 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [550 

Wisconsin; Senators Wilson, Chandler, Hale, and Howard; 
Galusha A. Grow, late speaker of the House of Repre- 
sentatives ; Schuyler Colfax, Ashley and Bingham of Ohio, 
Washburne of Illinois, Henry Winter Davis, John W. For- 
ney, Green Clay Smith, and General Sigel; while of New 
York men, the Unionists included among their speakers 
Lyman Tremain, Daniel S. Dickinson, George William 
Curtis, Chauncey M. Depew, United States Senators Mor- 
gan and Harris, Henry J. Raymond and H. B. Stanton. 1 
Just before the election, Seward addressed his neighbors at 
Auburn. Many of the Unionists mentioned above spoke 
daily for several weeks, so that a determined effort was made 
by supporters of the administration to reverse the verdict 
of the previous year. 

The adherents of that party were greatly encouraged by 
the results of the October elections in Ohio and Pennsyl- 
vania. 2 Then came a new call by the President for 300,000 
men, with the prospect of another draft. The Argus pub- 
lished numerous editorials on the latter subject. That of 
October 23rd said : 

The Proclamation of the President, calling for another levy 
of troops, sounds upon the ears of the people " like a fire bell 
in the night." Worse still, like one of those alarms at night, 
which on the apparent close of a great conflagration, gives 
signal that the fire has broken out anew, and in a fresh place. 
. . . The impression which the Presidential Proclamation has 
given in the interior of the State, we learn, is one of de- 
spondency. ... It closes the prospect of easy victory, which 

1 The names of the Democrats are taken from lists of speakers in 
the Argus and from accounts of Democratic meetings; the Unionist 
speakers for the most part from the lists of Union meetings published 
in the Tribune from day to day. 

2 See Herald of Oct. 15 and 23 for rejoicings in Buffalo, Oswego, 
and New York City. 



55 1 ] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 35 1 

a while ago had loomed up before our eyes. It shows us the 
Army of Virginia retreating back over the ground it has thrice 
passed on its way from Bull Run. It shows us the Army of 
the Southwest paralyzed, and its general removed. It shows 
Charleston, Mobile, and the blockaded ports of the South, still 
intact. If the war is to be protracted indefinitely, . . . what 
is to be the end? 

An editorial of November 3rd in the same paper, entitled 
" The Draft from New York — 108,000 More Men," said : 

No question of greater moment was ever presented to a 
people. ... If this number do not volunteer, they must be 
forced into the army even at the point of the bayonet. It is 
a question that involves the happiness of every family; and 
the prosperity of the whole people. . . . Let every patriotic 
citizen turn out to vote them [the Republicans] down. 

A circular was issued by the Democratic State Committee, 
claiming that those who had paid the three-hundred-dollar 
exemption fee were liable to be immediately drafted 
again ; but this was at once contradicted from Washington. 1 
Such utterances as those of the Argus, copied as they prob- 
ably were by the whole up-State Democratic press, very 
likely had a political effect beneficial to the Democrats. In 
New York City and Brooklyn, however, the prospect of 
another draft hurt the Democrats, owing to the great de- 
crease caused thereby in the issuance of naturalization papers 
— usually very brisk before election. 2 

In the first week in November many soldiers were fur- 
loughed, permitting them to go home and vote. The num- 
ber of those who left Washington for middle and central 
New York was estimated at from 16,000 to i8,ooo. 3 The 

1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, pp. 39-4°- 

2 Herald, Oct. 9. 3 Herald, Nov. 1, Washington dispatch. 



352 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [552 

Democrats denounced this. 1 The Tribune, in reply, de- 
fended it, saying that those furloughed were nearly all sick 
or wounded men, that the leaves of absence had been given 
without regard to party affiliations, and that the allegations 
that conditions of a political nature were attached to the 
furloughs were false. 2 Seward likewise declared that in 
view of Seymour's refusal to sign the soldiers' voting bill, 
the action of the authorities in this matter was entirely jus- 
tifiable and that the objection was " disloyal as well as un- 
grateful." 3 Another fact to be considered was the muster- 
ing out during the previous May and June of thirty-eight 
two-year New York regiments. 4 So that despite the Gov- 
ernor's veto, a portion of the " soldier vote " was cast. 
These men must have been an important factor in the elec- 
tion. Then too, the military situation was far more favor- 
able to supporters of the administration than a year before. 
The result was the success of the Union ticket by about 
30,000 majority. 5 Seymour's majority of 1862 was more 
than wiped out by Democratic losses in New York City 
alone. Kings County also showed a heavy decrease in the 
same direction, while among the counties that went over to 
the Unionists was Rensselaer, which contained the city of 
Troy where the draft had caused a disturbance. These 
facts perhaps indicate that the riots had a large share in 
producing the result. The State as a whole, compared 

1 Argus, Nov. 2, 3; New York Express, quoted in the Tribune, Nov. 5. 

2 Tribune, Nov. 3; similar defense, Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 31. 
The Argus (Nov. 3) asserted that furloughs were granted only after 
ascertaining the politics of the applicants ; and that the latter were dis- 
tinctly pledged to vote against the Democrats or refused transportation. 

s Herald, Nov. 6. 

4 Herald, April 27 ; Tribune, April 26. Some men, however, prob- 
ably re-enlisted as large bounties were offered. 

5 Albany Evening Journal Almanac, 1864. 



553] SEYMOUR ON TRIAL 353 

with 1862, showed a Democratic loss of over 21,000, and a 
Unionist gain of over 18,000. These figures might be inter- 
preted as showing that thousands of those who had voted 
for Seymour in 1862 voted for the Union ticket in 1863, 
thus condemning his course. Or if the diminution in the 
Democratic vote be taken as a natural decrease in an off 
year, the fact that the Unionists actually gained 18,000 
instead of suffering a loss of approximately the same size 
as their opponents, may be ascribed to the furloughed and 
mustered-out soldiers, plus Weed followers who had in 1862 
either voted for Seymour or remained away from the polls. 
Probably, all of these factors influenced the outcome. That 
the total vote fell off but three thousand compared with 
the year before, shows the great interest taken in the subject. 
In the metropolis, however, more attention was given to 
the contest for the mayoralty which occurred in December. 
Some 5,000 votes in excess of the number cast at the state 
election were polled. In October Tammany and Mozart, 
despite the boasted war character of the former and the peace 
doctrines of the latter, made a formal agreement for a fu- 
sion. 1 In accordance with this compact, the assembly, sena- 
torial, and judicial nominations had been divided. 2 Judges 
Bosworth, Hilton, and McCarthy were all refused renomin- 
ations by the allied Halls ; 8 and two of these places were 
given respectively to McCunn, who was noted for his dis- 
loyal sentiments, and Cardozo, who later became involved 
in the Tweed scandal. The Tammany-Mozart ticket was 

1 This agreement was printed in the Herald of Oct. 13. It was signed 
by Peter B. Sweeney on the part of Tammany, and by Fernando 
Wood and John K. Hackett on the part of Mozart. 

2 Herald, Oct. 15. 

3 Herald, Oct. 25 ; Tribune, Oct. 9. 



354 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [554, 

successful in November. A great surprise, however, came 
at the charter election in the following month. Many 
Democrats were highly dissatisfied with such bargaining. 1 
Determined efforts were made to nominate General Dix for 
mayor, but he refused to allow his name to be used in that 
connection. 2 The Unionists then selected Orison Blunt for 
their candidate. The McKeon Democracy had already put 
forth C. Godfrey Gunther, who had been the Tammany 
nominee for the same office two years before. Tammany 
and Mozart united on Francis I. A. Boole, a leading figure 
in the aldermanic ring. The campaign was in contrast with 
others of this period in that national issues once more were 
subordinated to local matters. Although the McKeonites 
had been shut out from the last state convention and had 
polled only about four thousand votes in November, Gun- 
ther was elected by about 6,500 plurality. The result was 
interpreted as a repudiation of the Tammany and Mozart 
machines and as a vote against government by bargain and 
in favor of an honest judiciary. 

1 Herald, Oct. 15 ; article on " City Politics," Herald, Oct. 25 ; the 
World, Nov. 2, condemned " the disgraceful huckstering . . . which 
foisted into the Tammany- Mozart ticket the name of John F. Mc- 
Cunn ;" see also speeches at the mass-meeting of the " Representative 
Democracy," Herald, Oct. 28. 

2 A committee, including John Jacob Astor and R. B. Roosevelt, 
visted Washington to interview Lincoln on the subject of Dix's 
nomination (Herald, Nov. n, 13). The President, it seems, declined 
to interfere ; soon after, a meeting of Democrats " desirous of effect- 
ing a reform in the Democratic party in this city" was held and a 
public meeting to nominate Dix determined on (Herald, advertise- 
ment, Nov. 17). ' 



CHAPTER XIII 

The Legislative Session of 1864 

Governor Seymour's annual message of 1864 was of the 
same character as that of the previous year. Again the 
greater portion of the document * was devoted to national 
affairs, and this part was largely made up of hostile criticism 
of the administration at Washington and of Congress; nor 
did Seymour refrain from discussing at length topics which 
did not directly concern the government of the State of 
New York. The national banking law was briefly con- 
demned, and legislation to protect the state banks was ad- 
vised. On the subjects of the enrolment and the draft, the 
Governor expressed the views to which he had already given 
utterance. He included statistics designed to show that, 
while the average ratio of enrolment to male population was 
higher in New York than elsewhere, it was lowest in New 
England, — a section for which he, like other Democrats, dis- 
played a marked aversion. Overlooking the fact that volun- 
teering and substituting were promoted by drafting, the 
Governor contrasted the aggregate of conscripts obtained 
from New York State, 2,557, with tne volunteers raised 
within its borders during the year — a number which by the 
inclusion of substitutes and reenlistments in the field, was in- 
creased to over 56,000. Seymour concluded from these 
figures that the 

attempt to fill our armies by drafting was abortive. While it 

1 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v. pp. 520-561. 

555] 355 



356 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [556 

gave no useful result, it disturbed the public mind, it carried 
anxiety and perplexity into the workshops, the fields, and the 
homes of our citizens ... it produces discontent in the ser- 
vice; it is opposed to the genius of our political system; it 
alienates our people from the Government; it is injurious to 
the industrial pursuits of the country. 

All this, however, was not the worst. The Governor 
imagined that some sort of a military dictatorship would be 
the result of the continued use of conscription. " If soldiers 
are to be raised by coercion," he said, 

in a little time the mass of our armies will be made up of con- 
scripts. . . . [This] will tell directly upon the policy of the 
Government, as by the laws of several States they [the sol- 
diers] are invited to vote in local and general elections in 
distant fields, in ways adapted to their organized and military 
condition there. A new influence, acting in an unusual form, 
is thus created in the conduct of affairs. . . . While the 
President, as Commander-in-Chief, controls the army, the 
unanimous political action of the army will make the Presi- 
dent. 

Then the Governor made a plea for strengthening the militia 
of the states as the constitutional force of the country. 

In reviewing the measures of Congress and of the Presi- 
dent during the year past, Seymour correctly diagnosed the 
situation when he asserted that their acts went " far toward 
destroying the rights of the States and centralizing all power 
at the National capital ;" and he quite justly remarked that 
" These proceedings of Congress and the action of the 
Executive and military officials have wrought a revolution. 
... At this time, then, we are living under a military gov- 
ernment, which claims that its highest prerogatives spring 
from martial law and military necessities." The Ameri- 



557] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 357 

can people must decide in calmer hours whether this 
revolution should be permanent. Meanwhile, the country 
was threatened with national bankruptcy and national ruin, 
and the time must come when the averting of these calamities 
would have to be considered. The Governor advanced as 
the proper solution of the impending difficulties, " wise 
statesmanship " and a " conciliatory policy " so that the war 
might be ended in accordance with the principles laid down 
in the Crittenden resolution; and here he entered into a 
lengthy condemnation of the radical plan of reconstruction 
so far as it was then developed. 

Lincoln's ten per cent plan 1 met with even more severe 
criticism at Seymour's hands. "A demand is made," said 
the message, 

that the people of the South shall swear to abide by a proc- 
lamation put forth with reluctance, and which is objected to 
by a large share of Northern people. . . . They [the Southern 
people] are to take an oath to which no reputable citizen of 
the North of any party will subscribe: that they will uphold 
any future proclamations relating to slavery. They are to sub- 
mit themselves to uttered and unuttered opinions and decrees. 

The ten per cent would maintain themselves in power by 
the arms and treasure of the North. 

The nine States thus controlled would balance in the House 
of Representatives in the choice of the President and at all 
times in the Senate, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, 
Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky and Wisconsin, 
with a united population of 16,533,383. . . . The one-tenth 
who would accept the Proclamation for the price of power, 
would not only govern the States made by Executive decrees, 

1 For this plan, see Rhodes, History of the United States, iv, p. 484. 



358 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [558 

but they would also govern the North. . . . Less than 70,000 
... in the nine States . . . would wield a power sufficient 
to weigh down that of the nine most populous States in the 
Union. We should thus have ... a system of rotten bor- 
oughs. 

This, Seymour continued, would destroy the representative 
nature of our government and enable an administration to 
perpetuate itself. Moreover, said he, 

every measure to convert the war against armed rebellion into 
one against private property and personal rights at the South, 
has been accompanied by claims to exercise military power in 
the loyal States of the North. . . . new and more extreme 
claims to arbitrary power are put forth when it is declared 
that the strength of the rebellion is broken. 

The conclusion was drawn that the doctrine of " Southern 
disorganization and revolution " would result in national 
bankruptcy and ruin, " lasting military despotism over one- 
third of our country, which will be the basis for military 
despotism over the whole land," no return of the soldiers, 
crushing burdens upon labor and industry, an opening of a 
" wide and lasting field for peculation and fraud," the per- 
petuation of " power by making and unmaking States," and 
the production of " internal disorder " and " national weak- 
ness in our external relations." 

This condensation may give an idea of the Governor's 
extended criticism, the whole forming a document which 
deserves to be ranked as a leading expression of the op- 
position during the war. One looks in vain for any re- 
cognition of the vast difficulties which confronted those 
governing and legislating at Washington. Governor Sey- 
mour was a conscientious man, and he doubtless intended 
that his message should be a solemn warning to those in 



559] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 359 

power. Instead, it served as a text for many partisan 
speeches in the Legislature, 1 and whatever influence the 
document had in moulding public opinion among the mass 
of Democrats was not in the direction of holding them firm 
in the support of the war. Thus, Seymour's attitude as 
shown in the message approached that of Fernando Wood. 
There was, however, a practical difference between the posi- 
tion of Seymour and that of the peace faction. The form- 
er's hostile~~views of the administration, his complaints at 
the way in which the war was being carried on, and his 
declaration in favor of bringing the struggle to a termina- 
tion by means of "wise statesmanship" did not prevent him 
from issuing a circular letter 2 to the various local officials 
urging them to " enter immediately upon the duty of raising 
by voluntary enlistments the quota " of their respective 
districts, and from tendering to the war department the 
use of the militia to garrison the forts around New York 
City. 3 Probably the circular was prompted by a desire to 
avoid another draft, and the offer of the state troops by a 
wish to bring them to greater efficiency. Nevertheless, such 
acts entitle Seymour to a place in history distinct from that 
of the peace faction. 

The Legislature of 1864 was a notable improvement upon 
the preceding one, and on the whole, made a good record. 4 
The Senate consisted of twenty-one Union members and 
eleven Democrats; the Assembly, of eighty-two Unionists 
and forty-six Democrats. 5 The Unionists having an over- 
whelming majority, the lower house was quietly organized 



1 Argus, Jan. 22, 23, 28, 29; Feb. 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 18; Mar. 4, 11, 18, 25; 
pril 8, 13, 15. 

2 Printed in the Herald, Dec. 9, 1863. 

3 Tribune, April 23; Argus, April 23. 

A. TT IJ A _ _!1 .1 A — . 



April 8, 13, 15 

2 Printed in 

3 Tribune, A 

4 Herald, April 29. 5 Argus, Jan. 4 



360 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [560 

by the election of Thomas G. Alvord as speaker, 1 an office 
which he had already held. 

The Unionists immediately took up the matter of the 
soldiers' vote; for it was realized that dispatch was neces- 
sary if the volunteers were to vote at the ensuing- presidential 
election. As the Democrats were committed to the con- 
stitutional amendment already passed by the previous legis- 
lature, and as any direct attempt on their part to block 
action on this subject would have merely created party 
capital for their opponents, there was no opposition to the 
second passage of the amendment; and thus it had gone 
through both houses without a dissenting vote before the 
session was a fortnight old. 2 By the middle of February, 
a bill providing for a special election on March 8th, at 
which the amendment should be submitted to the people, 
was passed unanimously and signed. 3 The result was 
258,795 votes for the proposed change to 48,079 against it. 4 
The Union members at once pressed on with a bill to give 
effect to the new provision of the constitution. While some 
of the Democrats preferred the appointment of commis- 
sioners by the Governor and the Comptroller to visit the 
camps, fleets, and hospitals and collect the soldiers' and 

1 Alvord, 77, Jacob L. Smith 42; George M. Curtis 1 (Assembly 
Journal, 1864, p. 6). 

2 Assembly Journal, 1864, P- A 2 ', Senate Journal, 1864, p. 54. 

3 The Democrats in the Senate tried in vain to have submitted at 
the same time another amendment providing for the appointment of 
commissioners to assist the Court of Appeals. The Unionists voted 
this down. The Democrats charged that the reason therefor was that 
submission then would give Seymour an opportunity to appoint Demo- 
cratic commissioners. Other than this, there was apparently no party 
debate (Herald, Feb. 6; Argus, Feb. 6; Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 242; 
Senate Journal, 1864, pp. 135, 136, 144). 

4 Herald, Mar. 26. 



5 6l] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 361 

sailors' proxies, 1 whereas the Unionists generally favored the 
plan of the bill vetoed by Seymour in 1863, the debates 
showed little partisan feeling. There was apparently on both 
sides a disposition to enact a measure which would leave no 
loopholes for frauds. 2 In April, a bill providing that quali- 
fied voters in the service might transmit by mail their 
proxies to a friend or to the inspectors of election was 
passed, though with fifteen Democrats in the Assembly vot- 
ing against it. 3 There was some doubt whether Seymour 
would give his approval and whether he would not at least 
ask ior changes. The Governor, however, finally signed 
the bill as passed, 4 notwithstanding the fact that it was 
similar to the measure vetoed by him in 1863. 5 

More party spirit was manifested on the question of militia 
appropriations. An act of 1862 provided for a reorganiza- 
tion of the state military forces, which then numbered about 
25,000, and for the creation, under the governor's direction, 
of a huge national guard. During 1863, eighteen regiments 
had been organized and completed by Seymour and his staff, 
while officers for fifty-six more had been appointed. 6 When 
an appropriation for $200,000 for the militia came up in the 
Legislature of 1864, the Unionists vigorously assailed the 
proposition. They asserted that the new organizations 
were political machines, and that Copperheads and disloyal 
men had been preferred in the distribution of commissions. 

1 Senate Journal, 1864, p. 614. This proposition was not, however, 
endorsed by all the Democrats nor by the Argus, which stated that it 
preferred the proxy system properly guarded {Argus, April 1). 

2 Herald, April 1, 6, 13; Tribune, April 1; Argus, April 2, 5, 13. 

3 Herald, April 6, 14; Argus, April 6, 15; Assembly Journal, 1864, 
p. 868; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 615. 

* Herald, April 22 ; Argus, April 22. 

5 Lincoln's Constitutional History of New York, ii, p. 239. 

6 Report of Adj. Gen. Sprague, printed in the Argus, Feb. 5. 



362 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [562 

Speaker Alvord probably expressed a common feeling when, 
in committee of the whole, he declared that " he would not 
say that the Executive in yonder chamber would array the 
militia against the general government . . . ; but he did 
not believe it policy for this Legislature to give him power 
to do it." * Then too, the operation of the law had proved 
expensive, 2 and a certain element in the Union ranks there- 
fore favored no further appropriations. The Democrats 
denied the charges against Seymour, and affirmed that the 
animus of the other side was really due to the fact that a 
Democrat was governor, whereas the act of 1862 was 
passed in the expectation of its being executed by a Republi- 
can. The debates were quite bitter. 3 In view, however, of 
the prospect that the state troops would be called into active 
service, the Unionists finally passed a bill 4 which, while de- 
priving Seymour of the selection of officers by restoring the 
elective system and omitting all items for a further in- 
crease, appropriated for the existing forces more than the 
sum originally named. 5 

A subject which aroused many partisan discussions and 
occupied much attention throughout this session was the 
matter of legalizing the debts contracted by counties in con- 
nection with the draft. Practically no opposition was 
evinced to a general bounty bill, 6 which sanctioned the acts 

1 Argus, Feb. 15. 

2 It was intended that, by a fine of one dollar upon all enrolled citi- 
zens who neglected the parades ordered, the law should pay for the ex- 
penses incurred by it; but a subsequent law relieved the delinquents 
of the fine (Report of the Adjutant General, Argus, Feb. 5). 

8 Tribune, Feb. 19, Mar. 3 ; Argus, Feb. 15, 18, Mar. 2, 3, 12, April 
6, 7, 18. 

4 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1248; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 825. 

5 Herald, April 23 ; Argus, April 25. 

6 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 229; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 119. 



563] T HE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 363 

of boards of supervisors in raising money for bounties in 
1863, authorized the levying of a tax by each county to 
pay such debts, and made lawful bounties for filling 
future quotas. 1 The Unionists, however, frowned on all 
attempts to legalize debts incurred by counties which 
paid the three-hundred-dollar commutation fee of those 
drafted, except where such fee had been paid only for fire- 
men and policemen. 2 The supervisors of Richmond 
County, for instance, were said to have issued bonds with 
whose proceeds were paid the exemption fees of every per- 
son drafted in that county, thus producing no recruits. The 
Unionists claimed that to give validity to such an act was 
disloyal. The Democrats retorted by charging the other 
side with repudiation. 3 A number of such bills for various 
counties were defeated by the Unionist majority or held up 
and only passed after the removal of the objectionable 
features. 4 

The Governor's suggestion to protect the state banks 
from the operation of the national banking law was not 
without friends among his political adversaries. 5 The ma- 
jority of the Assembly committee on banks was captured 
for such a policy through the defection of three of the four 

1 Herald, Feb. 7; Argus, Feb. 8. Such opposition as appeared was 
directed against the provision excluding from the benefits of the bill 
cities and towns which offered additional bounties of their own, but 
this opposition was apparently not of a party character. 

3 Tribune, Feb. 2, 5, Mar. 14, 17, 21 ; Argus, Feb. 2, 5, Mar. 14, 15, 
17, 19, 21. 

3 Besides references given in note 1, Argus editorials, e. g. Mar. 
21, 23. 

* Tribune, Mar. 21, 31 ; Argus, Mar. 19, 21, 30, April 21. 

5 Comptroller Robinson and Thomas W. Olcott wrote letters (printed 
in the Argus, April 12) virtually endorsing the views of the Assembly 
majority report. 



364 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [564 

Union members ; and accordingly, there was rendered a ma- 
jority report which enlivened legislative proceedings dur- 
ing April. This report 1 might well have been a campaign 
document for the Democrats. It declared that the coun- 
try was suffering from a redundant irredeemable paper 
currency, and insinuated that the excess was chiefly due 
to the government's issues of paper money to an un- 
necessary extent. Secretary Chase was assailed in no mild 
terms. " During the pending of the six per cent loan," 
the report read, 

the receipts of the government from conversions into stock 
were quite equal to the daily expenditures. . . . There are 
cogent reasons for believing that this absorption might have 
been continued to the present time had the Secretary of the 
Treasury not been bitten with a rage canine for borrowing at 
less than six per cent. . . . What matters it that the price of 
all commodities should be enhanced and the government and 
people lose ten times in cost what they save in interest? Is 
such a consideration to be weighed in comparison with the 
financial renown which must inure to him who borrows at 
less and less interest the deeper the country is plunged in 
debt? 

The exemption of United States securities from state and 
local taxation was strongly condemned ; 2 and the belief 
was expressed that the people of New York would not 
patiently submit to the shifting of taxation from the hun- 
dreds of millions invested in banks, insurance companies, 
and other moneyed corporations to property in other forms, 
nor permit rival corporations enjoying the same privileges 

1 Printed in the Herald, April 2. 

2 According to the report, the state banks held such securities to the 
value of one hundred and nine million dollars. 



565] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 365 

as the state banks " to coolly repudiate the obligation which 
the law imposes upon their fellow citizens." The con- 
clusion was drawn that " interest, sound policy, and strict 
justice alike demand that the Legislature should assert its 
sovereign prerogative in bringing all classes of persons 
within its scope of taxing powers." 

When this report was read, it caused a commotion among 
the Union members. After the clerk had gone through 
about a third of it, a motion to dispense with the further 
reading of the document was made and carried. Its views 
were denounced as disloyal, and an effort was made to 
prevent it being printed. 1 A few days later a report of 
the minority of the banking committee was presented, in 
favor of a bill authorizing the state banks to organize 
under the national banking law. 2 Two warm debates 
ensued, party lines being tightly d^rawn except for 
the few Unionists who had been won over by the state 
banking interests. 3 The committee on printing recom- 
mended the striking off of four thousand extra copies of the 
report of the minority of the banking committee, but only 
so many copies of the majority report — the language of 
which was characterized as semi-disloyal and criminal — 
as the rules called for. After heated argument, the 
first proposal was carried, but the House refused to have 
any copies of the majority report printed. 4 Amid much 
excitement, 5 the bill favored by the minority of the banking 

1 Herald, April 2, 4; Tribune, April 2; Assembly Journal, 1864, pp. 
827-8. 

2 Assembly Journal, i864 f p. 921. The Argus daily attacked this bill, 
e. g. April 16, 21. 

3 Herald, April 1 1 ; Tribune, April 12. 

4 Assembly Journal, 1864, pp. 1133, 1134, 1135. For the debate, Herald, 
April 16; Tribune, April 18. 

5 Tribune, April 24; Herald, April 21. 



366 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [566 

committee was passed at a later session by a party vote. 1 In 
the Senate, pressure was apparently needed to bring three 
Union members into line, the measure at first being rejected 
upon its final reading. 2 In the afternoon, however, the bill 
was reconsidered by a strictly party vote, and in the same 
manner passed on the following day. 3 

The subject of the payment of the interest on the state 
debt again occupied the attention of the lawmakers. In the 
previous legislature the Unionists, in the face of Demo- 
cratic opposition, had passed a resolution providing for the 
payment of interest in coin to foreign bondholders only. In 
1864, some Unionists desired that all be paid in green- 
backs. Concurrent resolutions were introduced in the Sen- 
ate providing that in paying principal and interest of state 
securities no discrimination as to the currency used should 
be made between foreign and domestic owners. This 
gave rise to party debates. The expense of premiums 
paid for gold, the inducement to bondholders to transfer 
the securities to foreigners, and the fact that much of the 
debt held abroad was in the hands of the British, whose 
government was charged with having openly arrayed itself 

1 Three Unionists, two of whom were among the signers of the 
majority report, voted with the Democrats. Assembly Journal, 1864, 
p. 1246. 

2 Senate Journal, 1864, p. 755. 

3 Senate Journal, 1864, pp. 779, 808. The bill failed to receive Gov- 
ernor Seymour's approval, but was again passed in 1865 and became a 
law then (Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, p. 588 footnote). 
In the session of 1864, a resolution introduced by a Democratic senator, 
requesting New York';s representatives in Congress to vote for the repeal 
of the act exempting federal securities from state taxation was buried 
by a party vote (Senate Journal, 1864, p. 826) ; also a bill compelling 
all holders of U. S. securities to pay a five per cent tax on income 
derived therefrom, although passed in the Assembly, was side-tracked 
by a strictly party vote in the Senate (Senate Journal, 1864, p. 867; 
Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1393). 



567] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 ' 367 

against the United States, were advanced as reasons for 
passing- the resolutions. On the other hand, the Democrats 
argued that such a policy would be immoral, dishonorable, 
and inexpedient. They made efforts to have all bondhold- 
ers paid in gold, but this proposal was solidly opposed by the 
Unionists. The resolutions were then passed by both 
houses, despite some insurgent Union members voting with 
the Democrats. 1 Thereupon, the Governor sent in a special 
message advocating the payment in coin of all interest on the 
state debt or of that due the residents of other countries 
at least. 2 In the Senate, the message was tabled by a 
party vote; 3 and in the Assembly, objection having been 
made to a motion embodying the recommendation and the 
session coming to a close, no action on the message was 
taken. 4 

Subsequently Seymour appealed to capitalists, bankers, 
and public-spirited men to make voluntary subscriptions 
wherewith gold might be obtained to pay the interest in 
specie to foreign bondholders at least. 5 The New York City 
Chamber of Commerce appointed a committee to collect 
such contributions, and adopted a resolution declaring that 
the welfare of New York State demanded that both prin- 
cipal and interest of the public debt should be punctually 
paid in coin. 6 Thus the Governor's position was endorsed 
by the highest commercial interests. 

Senate Journal, 1864, pp. 285-6; Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1145. 
One Democrat in the Senate and two in the Assembly voted with the 
Unionists. 

2 Lincoln's Messages from the Governors, v, pp. 578-581. 

3 Tribune, April 25. * Argus, April 25. 5 Argus, May 2. 

6 Tribune, May 11. The project was subsequently abandoned when 
the committee reported that $750,000 would have to be raised to pay in 
coin both interest and principal due during that year to foreigners 
(Annual Report of the Chamber of Commerce for 1864, pp. 27, 28). 



368 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [568 

At this session, a concurrent resolution in favor of amend- 
ing the federal constitution to prohibit slavery was intro- 
duced by Mr. Carolus Bryant, 1 a New York City Democrat, 
evidently out of sympathy on this question with the mass of 
his party. The resolution was passed in the Assembly just 
before the adjournment, but the Senate failed to act upon 
the matter. 2 

Politicians in and out of the Legislature were greatly in- 
terested in the solution of the metropolitan police commis- 
sion question. Seymour had hardly shown firmness in deal- 
ing with this subject. Notwithstanding the attempted re- 
moval of the Police Commissioners on the first day of his 
term 3 and despite later charges of a nature similar to those 
already described, and to which the Governor had given in 
June ten days to make answer, 4 the Commissioners had 
quietly retained their places, and had rendered most cred- 
itable services during the draft riot. 5 Their annual report 
for 1863 seems to have been the immediate cause of stirring 
the Governor to renewed action. 6 Speaking of the riot, the 
Commissioners said : " These violent proceedings had a 
political design and direction, and received encouragement 

1 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 73J. 

2 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 1418 ; Herald, April 27. 

3 Supra, p. 262. 

4 Herald, June 5, 1863. These later charges are contained in the 
same issue. 

5 Herald, Jan. 5. Seymour himself later declared that the riot was 
suppressed " mainly by the energy, boldness, and skill of the Police 
Department" (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, vii, p. 19). 

6 Herald, Jan. 1. Though the order of removal (printed in the 
Herald, Jan. 3) gave as the ground for that act the charges mentioned 
above and said nothing about the passage in the report referring to 
the riot, yet the Argus (Jan. 6) said that the misconduct of the Com- 
missioners " was aggravated by the falsehood and impudence of their 
official report," and it then quoted the passages given above. 



569] THE LEGISLATURE OF 1864 369 

from newspapers and parties of influence and intelligence;" 
and they expressed satisfaction that, although their threat- 
ened summary ejection had given rise to cases of insubor- 
dination and although a " large portion of the force were 
of the same nationality and political and religious faith as 
the riotous mob," the police had acted as a unit during the 
disturbance. 1 Immediately after the appearance of this 
document, Seymour, although he had not carried out his 
promises to give the charges of the previous year a " fair 
and full trial " and a " thorough investigation," removed 
the Commissioners a second time and appointed others. 
The displaced officials, however, refused to vacate. 2 Thus, 
on the eve of another draft New York City was threatened 
with the ugly complications likely from a conflict over the 
control of the police — an experience which, in a different 
form, had produced dire results when Fernando Wood was 
mayor. 

The question was now taken up by the legislators, and a 
bill providing for a compromise in the shape of a bi-partisan 
police board was introduced. 3 The names of the two 
Democratic members caused in the ranks of that party a 
split in the Assembly * and a bitter family quarrel which 
was waged both in caucus 5 and on the floor of the Senate. 6 
Tammany members desired these choice places for Elijah 
F. Purdy and Samuel Jones, a brother-in-law of Peter B. 
Sweeney. The up-State Democrats stood by Seymour in 

1 Herald, Jan. 1, quoting from the report. 

2 Reply of Commissioners Acton and Bergen to Governor Seymour, 
in the Herald, Jan. 3. 

3 Herald, Jan. 20, 21 ; Tribune, Jan. 21 ; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 35. 

4 Herald, Mar. 10, 12 ; Tribune, Mar. 10, 12. 

5 Herald, Feb. 12 ; Tribune, Feb. 12. 

6 Herald, Feb. 12, 13; Tribune, Feb. 13; Argus, Feb. 13. 



370 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [570 

his determination that two of his previous appointees, Bos- 
worth and McMurray, should get the positions. The 
Unionists acted together, and the bill was passed with the 
names of Bosworth, McMurray, Acton, and Bergen, the 
last two being commissioners whom the Governor had 
tried to remove. 1 Seymour accepted this measure, Acton 
remained president of the Board, Kennedy, who had been 
so severely denounced by the Democrats, continued as su- 
perintendent of the police, 2 and thus the matter came to a 
rather lame conclusion. 

1 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 478; Senate Journal, 1864, p. 179; Herald, 
Feb. 16; Mar. 12. Bowen, the third of the former commissioners, had 
resigned before his removal to enter the army. 

* Herald, Mar. 16. 



CHAPTER XIV 

New York and the Presidential Nominations of 1864 

The preliminaries of the presidential campaign of 1864 
began in this State early. The Democratic State Conven- 
tion for the election of delegates to the national convention 
met on February 24th at Albany. 1 Besides two rival dele- 
gations from Kings County, there appeared as contestants 
from New York County Tammany, Mozart, and the Mc- 
Keon organization, the last named with the prestige of hav- 
ing recently smashed the combined Tammany and Mozart 
machines in the mayoralty election. 2 The settlement of this 
triangular fight was the most interesting event of the con- 
vention. The committee on credentials, after a long hear- 
ing, reported in favor of admitting all three delegations 
with six votes each. A scene of disorder followed. Mozart 
and McKeon accepted the compromise, though the former 
delegation had divided on the question of acting with 
Tammany in case the McKeonites were admitted — so close 
was the alliance between some of the leaders of the two 
Halls. Tammany, however, absolutely refused to accept 
the settlement proposed by the committee. Senator Fields, 
on behalf of the Tammany delegation, declared that the 
McKeon organization had no real strength, and that Tam- 

1 The calling of the convention so early in the year by the state 
committee was, it seems, a victory over the peace faction in the com- 
mittee, who argued in favor of a later date (Herald, Jan. 28; Tribune, 
Jan. 30). 

a Herald, Feb. 23, 25. 

571] 371 



372 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [572 

many could not consent to be placed on a footing of equality 
with it. Charging that McKeon was a member of a secret 
peace society, Fields described the issue as that of the sup- 
porters of the war versus those opposed to it. If Tammany 
should be rejected, he said, and the peace Democracy of Mc- 
Keon admitted, the effect could not be mistaken. This speech 
was interrupted by hisses, groans, yells, cries of " false," 
"You lie !" and applause. McKeon in reply admitted that he 
favored peace, but denied that his organization was for or 
against it; he charged Tammany with being traffickers for 
office, railroad jobbers, and allies of the Republicans. The 
audible approval reported for McKeon's avowal in favor of 
peace apparently indicated that a portion of the delegates 
strongly sympathized with such views. Finally, after more 
washing of Democratic dirty linen in public, the recommen- 
dation of the committee on credentials was unanimously 
adopted, whereupon the Tammany delegation left the hall. 1 
In an attempt to avoid thereafter what had become a 
chronic nuisance at New York Democratic state conven- 
tions, a resolution was then adopted that delegates from 
New York City should be chosen in the future by assembly 
districts and not by the organizations like Tammany or 
Mozart as a whole. Another resolution, that those chosen 
to represent New York at the national convention should 
vote as a unit, was carried despite the opposition of the peace 
men. 2 As reported from committee, the roll of delegates 
to the national convention included neither of the Woods; 
and attempts to amend the list were side-tracked by the 
previous question. Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond, 
Isaac Butts, 3 and August Belmont were chosen dele- 

1 Herald, Feb. 25 ; Tribune, Feb. 25 ; Argus, Feb. 25, 26. 

2 Herald, Feb. 25 ; Argus, Feb. 26. 
s Editor of the Rochester Union. 



573] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 373 

gates at large. Among the district delegates were Oswald 
Ottendorfer, John McKeon, Samuel J. Tilden, Amasa J. 
Parker, James S. Thayer, John A. Green, Sanford E. 
Church, and Washington Hunt. The convention adopted 
no resolutions whatever as to issues or as to preference with 
regard to candidates. 1 

After the convention was over, the Tammany organ, the 
New York Leader, declared that the war Democracy must 
be rallied. 2 The Tammany Hall General Committee 
adopted resolutions approving the action of the Tammany 
delegates in withdrawing from the convention. 3 An ad- 
dress and declaration of principles was drawn up and con- 
sidered by the General Committee; and although it does 
not appear that this manifesto was adopted, it perhaps de- 
serves attention in view of the attitude of Mozart 4 and of 
the current speculations as to whether Tammany would 
call a rival state convention upon a war platform. 5 This 
document, while condemning the administration and its 
various measures and urging that the Democrats be re- 
stored to power, at the same time said : 

We believe that the Union and the Constitution can only be 
maintained by the exercise of superior force in overcoming 
this rebellion — that there can be no peaceful solution of this 
question . . . except through successful war or a shameful 

1 Herald, Feb. 26; Argus, Feb. 26. 

2 Extract printed in the Tribune, Feb. 29. 
s Tribune, Mar. 14; Herald, Mar. 14. 

4 On January 2nd the Mozart General Committee had unanimously 
adopted the following : " Resolved, That the national democracy of 
New York are unqualifiedly opposed to the further prosecution of the 
war of emancipation and extermination, now being waged against the 
seceded States; and demand and will continue to demand negotiation, 
reconciliation and peace." — Advertisement in the Herald, Jan. 3. 

5 Herald, Mar. 1. 



374 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [574 

surrender to the demands of Southern treason ... it cannot 
be denied that rebel emissaries in our midst are endeavoring 
to create a division of sentiment at the North to encourage the 
South and to prevent that concentration and energetic unity 
of action among the Union men of the country so essential 
to an early and successful issue of our national struggle. 

The Regency and not the Democratic party, the address 
continued, was represented in the Albany convention; and 
a protest was made against the action of that body. Further, 
the address said : " We believe that slavery, as a subject of 
political agitation, has passed from the politics of this coun- 
try; and that there should be but one party of patriotic 
men . . . devoted wholly to the restoration of the Union 
and the supremacy of the constitution, surrendering all 
subordinate issues." Finally, those of similar sentiments 
throughout the State were invited to communicate with 
the signers of the address, for the purpose of taking such 
steps in support of its principles as should be deemed 
proper. 1 

This paper was the work of a clever though crafty and 
unscrupulous politician, Peter B. Sweeney ; 2 and perhaps, 
its significance was nothing more than an intended blow at 
Tammany's rivals, whom it was desirable to defeat and 
whose peace proclivities furnished a good point of attack. 
But if Tammany had not been controlled by placemen, im- 
portant developments might have resulted from her with- 
drawal and the admission of the peace advocates to the 
convention. , 

While the Democrats were thus distracted, a movement 
national in scope was beginning to make itself felt in the 
Union ranks in New York State. The old radical dissatis- 

1 Printed in the Herald, Mar. 13. 

* Letter of Sweeney to the Editor, Herald, Mar. 16. 



575] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 375 

faction with the administration was passing from discon- 
tented words to action; and to counteract this, the friends 
of the President began to bestir themselves. On January 
23rd, the Union Central Committee of the City and County 
of New York — a body composed of adherents of the Seward 
wing — unanimously passed a resolution recommending the 
renomination of Lincoln. 1 On January 27th, a conference 
was held at Albany, at which there were present a number 
of Unionist legislators, state officials, and others including 
Gerrit Smith and Lyman Tremain. Gerrit Smith offered 
resolutions of a radical character condemning some of the 
recent measures of the government. After discussion, 
however, these resolutions were tabled, and others endorsing 
the war and giving a general approval to the administra- 
tion were adopted. 2 Thus the radicals were apparently 
balked. 

About the same time, a number of wealthy and prominent 
Unionists of New York City sent out a circular to the 
" Loyal Citizens of the United States," lauding Lincoln and 
proposing that all in favor of his renomination should hold 
on February 22nd in their respective localities meetings to 
that end. 3 However, these demonstrations did not take 
place in New York City or elsewhere, for the move seems to 
have been regarded as premature. 4 At the beginning of 
February, " Lincoln Clubs " began to be formed in the 
various wards of the City. 5 Two associations having 
the same object were also organized there, one of them, 
the " Central Union Club " being especially active. Its 

1 Tribune, Jan. 25. 

2 Herald, Jan. 28, 29 ; Tribune, Jan. 30. 

9 Circular printed in the Herald, Feb. 7. 

4 Washington dispatch, Herald, Feb. 11. 

5 Tribune, Feb. 3. 



376 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [576 

leading spirit was Simeon Draper, a politician of local 
note and later collector of the port. 1 In March the 
Kings County Republican General Committee endorsed 
Lincoln and his administration. 12 But the President's ad- 
herents obtained no such approval from the Legislature. 
While in other states — New Hampshire, Connecticut, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, Kansas, Cali- 
fornia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Maine, either the 
lawmakers or the Union members thereof or else a Union 
state convention had come out in favor of another term 
for the President, 3 New York took no action on this matter. 
In March, Assemblyman Brandreth, a young War Demo- 
crat, offered a resolution endorsing Lincoln ; but it was laid 
on the table 4 and no more was heard of it. 5 

Meanwhile the friends of Chase and Fremont were not 
idle. The radicals, including the Tribune, generally urged 
that it was too early to select presidential candidates and 
that all Unionists ought for the time to devote themselves 
to the single aim of crushing the rebellion. In an editorial 
of February 23rd the Tribune virtually declared against 
Lincoln's renomination. It avowed the intention, however, 
of heartily supporting the Union candidates whoever they 
might be, and admitted that Lincoln had " well discharged 
the responsibilities of his exalted station " and that he was 
the first choice of a large majority of those who upheld the 
war. Yet, the editorial continued, the Tribune was opposed 
to two terms except " under the pressure of extraordinary 
circumstances . . . The practical question, then is this — 

1 Tribune, Mar. 31, April 8; Herald, May 14. 

2 Tribune, Mar. 2. 

3 Tribune, Feb. 23; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, pp. 55-56. 

4 Assembly Journal, 1864, p. 416. 

5 Herald, April 27. 



577] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 377 

Has Mr. Lincoln proved so transcendentally an able and 
admirable a President that all consideration of the merits, 
abilities or services of others should be postponed or fore- 
borne in favor of his reelection? We answer in the nega- 
tive." In March, a meeting in favor of the " Pathfinder " 
was addressed by Greeley. 1 

The Independent about the same time published an article 
which, while mentioning no names, plainly indicated a pre- 
ference for some other than Lincoln. 2 The Post, like the 
other radicals, declared that the calling of the Union Na- 
tional Convention to meet on June 7th was a mistake. 
" Should our affairs continue to prosper," it said, " then 
Lincoln will continue in the favor he now enjoys. . . . But 
if . . . we shall encounter only reverses and calamities, 
would Mr. Lincoln then be the proper standard bearer of 
the loyal party ?" 3 Under date of March 25th, a petition 
to the National Executive Committee of the " Union and 
Republican Parties " asking that the national convention 
be deferred and that it be assembled not earlier than Sep- 
tember 1 st, was sent out from New York with a formidable 
list of signers; these included two-thirds of the Unionist 
members of the state Senate, also William Cullen Bryant, 
William Curtis Noyes, and George Opdyke. 4 

In April, the fact of Chase's withdrawal from the presi- 
dential canvass became known. The question then turned 
to whether the radical strength could be concentrated on 

1 Herald, Mar. 19 ; the Tribune of Mar. 18 printed at the top of its 
editorial columns an invitation to a meeting of friends of Fremont to 
consider the propriety of presenting his name as a presidential candidate. 

2 Extract from the Independent, quoted by the Tribune, Feb. 18. 

3 New York Evening Post, Mar. 21. The Tribune, up to the very 
meeting of the Baltimore convention, took a similar attitude. 

* Printed in the Herald, April 27. 



378 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [578 

Fremont. The two centers of the movement in his behalf 
were St. Louis and New York. 1 It was the Central Fremont 
Club of New York City that joined with the St. Louis 
radicals at the beginning of May in issuing the call for the 
Cleveland convention. 2 In the middle of May, there was 
issued another call for the same object, and among the New 
York men who signed this document 3 were state Comp- 
troller Robinson, Attorney-General Cochrane, ex-state Sena- 
tor Andrew J. Colvin, and Thomas B. Carroll, long a promi- 
nent and ardent anti-Weed man. When the convention 
assembled, Cochrane was chosen permanent chairman and 
made an eloquent address. 4 New York representatives 
favored Grant's nomination, 6 and there was read in the 
convention a letter from Comptroller Robinson advo- 
cating this step; 8 but the other delegations were for Fre- 
mont, and so the nomination went to him with Cochrane 
for his running mate. 

On June 4th, the Saturday before the Baltimore con- 
vention, a great mass-meeting in honor of General Grant 
was held in New York City. While the committee which 
managed the affair made no declaration of any ulterior 
motive and even invited Lincoln to attend, there was prob- 
ably back of the demonstration a purpose of influencing the 
coming convention in behalf of Grant's nomination for the 

1 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 30. 

2 Tribune, May 6. None of the signers who came from New York 
were prominent in politics. 

3 Printed in the Herald, May 18. 
* Herald, June 1. 

5 Tribune, May 31 ; Herald, May 31 ; confirmed by the action of the 
New York delegates on the floor of the convention as reported in the 
convention proceedings, Herald, June 1. 

6 Herald, June 1. 



5 79] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 379 

presidency. 1 Lincoln men, however, joined in and con- 
trolled the gathering, 2 and so the speeches and resolutions 
were of no political significance. 3 

By the time that the Union State Convention met at 
Syracuse — May 24th — Lincoln's strength with the mass of 
the party was so apparent that the convention adopted by 
acclamation and with hearty cheering a resolution approving 
his administration, " recognizing his integrity and patriotic 
efforts to suppress the rebellion," and expressing " its pre- 
ference for his renomination." 4 Thurlow Weed, Horace 
Greeley, Henry J. Raymond, and Roscoe Conkling were the 
big lights in attendance. 5 The rivalry between the two 
wings of the party broke forth because of the presence of 
two delegations — both, however, represented as earnestly 
favoring a second term for Lincoln 6 — respectively chosen 
by the Seward and radical organizations of New York City. 
As the temporary chairman had the appointment of the com- 
mittee on contested seats, the struggle began over the selec- 
tion of that officer. Raymond nominated Chauncey M. De- 
pew; Richard Busteed, a radical, named Lyman Tremain. 
The latter won by six votes. The majority of the committee 

1 Herald, June 2; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 50; 
Rhodes' History of the United States, iv, p. 469. 

2 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 50. 

3 Herald, June 5. Except for a casual reference by General Wal- 
bridge, Grant's name was not mentioned in connection with the presi- 
dency by any of the speakers. 

4 Herald, May 26. Describing conditions just before the convention 
assembled, a dispatch said: "The sentiment in favor of the renomin- 
ation of Lincoln seems to be almost unanimous" (Herald, May 25). 
See also the resolutions adopted by the United Union Associations of 
the City of New York— evidently the radical organization.— Tribune, 
May 23. 

5 Herald, May 25. 

6 Ibid. 



380 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [580 

on contested seats reported in favor of seating both delega- 
tions from New York City, and this recommendation was 
adopted by a vote of 192 to 98 — apparently a defeat for the 
Seward faction. After the choice of the district delegates 
to the national convention and the passage of the Lincoln 
resolution, the convention balloted for the delegates at large, 
with the result that the four elected were Henry J. Raymond 
with 231 votes; Daniel S. Dickinson, 208; Lyman Tremain, 
175; and Preston King, 135. Raymond and King be- 
longed to the Seward wing; Dickinson and Tremain to the 
opposing faction. The convention closed with a speech by 
Raymond in favor of Lincoln's renomination. 1 

On the following day, a new organization within the 
Union party, a state committee of War Democrats, was 
formed. 2 The sentiment of those present on this occasion, 
including leading War Democrats from other states, was 
unanimously in favor of another term for Lincoln. 3 A 
meeting in the metropolis soon after resulted in the estab- 
lishment of a committee of the War Democrats of the City 
and County of New York, and in the adoption of resolu- 
tions calling for the renomination of Lincoln and urging the 
name of Daniel S. Dickinson for the vice-presidential nomi- 
nation. 4 A few days before the Union National Conven- 
tion assembled, the state committee of War Democrats 
adopted a resolution requesting the War Democracy of 
New York and of other states to rally at Baltimore for the 
purpose of furthering Dickinson's prospects. 5 

1 Herald, May 26, 29. 

2 Herald, May 26; Tribune, May 28. The Argus (May 30) de- 
nounced the committee as " a fraud and a humbug." The Albany 
Evening Journal (May 28) did practically the same; but there was a 
motive behind the denunciations of both of these papers. 

3 Tribune, May 28. 4 Tribune, June 1. 5 Tribune, June 4. 



581] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 38 1 

The factional struggle in New York was now transferred 
to the Union National Convention, which met at Baltimore 
on June 7th. Thurlow Weed was on the ground, 1 attending 
to the task of defeating Dickinson, for whom a number of 
New York War Democrats were laboring, 2 and who was 
found to have great strength not • only in the New York 
delegation but also in those of other states. 3 Indeed, the 
principal struggle within the convention was over the vice- 
presidential nomination. The renomination of Lincoln be- 
ing quite certain on the eve of the convention, the vice- 
presidency would naturally go to the East; and the second 
place would probably have been conceded to the Empire 
State had the New York delegates reached an agreement. 4 
But they could not harmonize their differences. As a War 
Democrat and as a citizen of New York, Dickinson had 

1 Tribune, June 8; Herald, June 7. 

2 Tribune, June 7. Weed called the Dickinson workers at Baltimore 
" a formidable and organized body of ultra abolitionists, ' loyal 
leaguers' and radical demagogues" (T. W. in Albany Evening Journal, 
June 11). 

3 Herald, June 6, 7, 8. 

i Opposed to this, we have Alexander K. McClure's statement that 
Lincoln desired Johnson to be nominated for the vice-presidency and 
expressed such a wish {Recollections of Half a Century, p. 87; also 
Lincoln and Men of War Times, appendix) ; per contra, we have Lin- 
coln's reply to Nicolay (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 
72) and Nicolay's statement. Rhodes (History of the United States, 
iv, pp. 469, 470) says that Johnson was selected because he was a War 
Democrat and a border state man, but takes no stand as to the con- 
troversy over Lincoln's part. Neither does Rhodes make mention of 
the influence of New York politics or of Seward's position on the 
question. Bates' statement in " Lincoln in the Telegraph Office " 
(Century Magazine, vol. 74, p. 618) is also opposed to McClure's con- 
tention. That Johnson fulfilled both of the conditions mentioned by 
Rhodes, while Dickinson satisfied but one, does not preclude the strong 
probability that New York politics had a decided influence in the 
final choice. 



382 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [582 

desirable qualifications. But it was claimed that should the 
vice-president be a New Yorker, Seward would have to re- 
sign the secretaryship of state. 1 Hence, the adherents of 
Weed bent their energies toward keeping New York off 
the ticket. Moreover, the name of Daniel S. Dickinson was 
not a palatable one to the Weed men. 

The day before the convention assembled, the New York 
delegation caucused. After unanimously voting for the 
renomination of Lincoln and engaging in a long debate 
over the second place, a ballot was taken for the latter, re- 
sulting in 28 votes for Hamlin, 16 for Dickinson, 8 for 
Johnson, 6 for Tremain and a few scattering. The caucus 
then adjourned to the morrow. 2 On the 7th, a bitter 
struggle of three hours' duration occurred, in which 
Tremain and C. B. Cochrane spoke for Dickinson, while 
Preston King, George William Curtis, and Henry J. Ray- 

1 This argument seems a strange one in view of the fact that the 
vice-president and the secretary of state came from the same state 
during a part, at least, of the administrations of Washington, John 
Adams and Polk, not to mention cases later than Lincoln's time. Yet, 
the current accounts (e. g. Herald, June 7 ; Tribune, June 9) are in- 
directly confirmed by Weed's statement that " a formidable and organ- 
ized body of ultra abolitionists, ' loyal leaguers ' and radical dema- 
gogues appeared at Baltimore, for the purpose, as they avowed, of 
procuring the nomination of Mr. Dickinson for Vice-President, that 
Mr. Seward might be excluded from the Cabinet" (T. W. in the 
Albany Evening Journal, June 11). According to the Herald dispatch, 
George William Curtis, in the caucus of the New York delegation, 
said " that the real question at issue had not been given yet, and it 
might as well be stated and met right here. If the Vice-President was 
taken from New York, it would prevent that State from having a 
member of the Cabinet." The same dispatch says : " Mr. Raymond, 
alluding to the fact that this was a move to break up the Cabinet, 
was taken [to task] by Mr. Tremain, who, in retort, declared that a 
change in the Cabinet would not be a very serious calamity ..." 
(Herald, June 8). 

a Herald, June 7. 



583] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 383 

mond opposed him. The ballot again resulted in no choice, 
Johnson receiving 32 votes, Dickinson 28, and Hamlin 6. 1 

New York took a prominent part in the convention. One 
of its delegates, Senator Morgan, called the assemblage to 
order; the report of the committee on credentials was de- 
livered by another New Yorker, ex-Senator Preston King; 
a third, Henry J. Raymond, wrote the platform and was 
subsequently chosen chairman of the Union National Com- 
mittee; while a fourth, George William Curtis, wrote the 
letter of notification to Lincoln. The committee on cre- 
dentials recommended the exclusion of the delegates of any 
of the seceded states; but King, a Seward man, 2 moved 
to amend the report, which he himself had just rendered, 
by admitting the Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas 
delegates. 3 This strange proceeding was ascribed in the 
press to an arrangement between the Southern delegates 
and three or four Seward leaders, the latter agreeing to 
admit the Southerners in return for votes against Dickin- 
son; and it was also asserted that a bargain for the same 
end was made between the Seward men and the Ohio 
delegation. 4 The occurrences within the convention lent 
probability to these allegations. At any rate, the admis- 
sion of Tennessee's representatives, thereby rendering 
Andrew Johnson available, was an important step toward 
heading off Dickinson. The case of Tennessee being taken 
up first, the vote against this proposition was steadily 
increasing until New York gave forty-four votes in its 
favor; then Ohio gave forty-two, and subsequently surfi- 

1 Tribune, June 8; Herald, June 8. 

2 King usually if not always sided with the Weed-Seward faction 
during the period here treated, although his principles were apparently 
radical. 

3 Tribune, June 10; Herald, June 9, 12. 

4 Herald, June 9, 12. 



384 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [584 

cient changes were made to let Tennessee in. The ad- 
mission of Louisiana and Arkansas naturally followed. 1 
When the time to nominate candidates for the vice-presi- 
dency came, Lyman Tremain presented Dickinson's name, 
making - an eloquent appeal which was received with en- 
thusiasm. 2 Had it not become apparent as the ballot pro- 
ceeded that Johnson would probably be successful, the 
latter would have had but 200 votes to 113 for Dickinson, 
145 for Hamlin, 28 for Butler and 34 scattering. As a re- 
sult of changed votes, the ballot as announced gave John- 
son 492, Dickinson 17, and Hamlin 5/ Thus the friends 
of Seward won and the United States came to have Andrew 
Johnson for its chief executive. 

The national convention was followed by a controversy 
more bitter than ever before between Thurlow Weed and 
his opponents. The immediate occasion was an editorial 
in the New York Evening Post, wherein two of the resolu- 
tions adopted at Baltimore were spoken of as " a blow right 
between the eyes of the Secretary of State." Further, the 
editorial said : " By their cavalier treatment of the school 
of Weed, Cameron and the like, they [the convention] told 
him [Lincoln] pretty plainly to keep away from such fel- 
lows in the future; and we hope he will heed the warning." * 
Weed replied in the Albany Evening Journal. After re- 
buking the Post for its criticisms of the President — and the 
Post, it must be admitted, had passed judgment on Lincoln 
in rather outrageous terms, considering that it avowed 
itself a supporter of the administration — Weed went on to 
defend Seward. " Why this persistent persecution, blood 
hound tracking of an able, patriotic, unselfish, upright 

1 Tribune, June 9. 

2 Herald, June 9. * Ibid. 
* New York Evening Post, June 9. 



585] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 385 

statesman?" he asked. And he concluded with the asser- 
tion that " the wicked, homicidal slavery leaders would have 
failed to consummate their treason but for the aid 
received from their ' best friends,' the abolitionists of the 
North, 

Of course, the Post retorted, assailing Weed as father 
of the lobby at Albany and as a gridiron-railroad bill man- 
ager, and insinuating that he had acted corruptly at the be- 
ginning of the war in the chartering of the steamer " Cati- 
line " for the use of the government, 2 a transaction which 
had created a scandal. In reply, Weed not only defended 
the " Catiline " business, but declared that he was entirely 
disconnected with the affair. However, it appeared from 
his own statement that he had endorsed notes for John E. 
Develin, with which the latter had advanced money to the 
person who purchased the " Catiline " after it had been 
verbally chartered by the government agent; but, accord- 
ing to Develin, Weed did not know the object for which the 
notes were drawn. 

Weed was apparently wrought up by these charges. He 
struck back at each of his enemies. He accused an editor 
of the Post of being a prominent member of the Albany 
lobby, and affirmed that one of the Post's proprietors, Hen- 
derson, was guilty of corruption in the office of naval agent. 
This last allegation had some basis of truth, it seems; for 
not long after, Henderson was dismissed from office and 
arrested. 3 Then Weed turned upon ex-Mayor Opdyke. 
" This man," said Weed, " has made more money by secret 
partnerships in army cloth, blankets, clothing, and gun con- 
tracts than any fifty sharpers ... in the city of New 

1 Albany Evening Journal, June 11. 

2 New York Evening Post, June 13. 

3 Herald, June 24. 



386 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [586 

York." He declared that Opdyke had denied all inter- 
est in a claim arising out of the destruction of a gun factory 
during the draft riot, that he might sit officially on the 
board which passed upon such matters, and subsequently, 
after an allowance of $190,000 had been made and paid by 
the City, a suit arose in the course of which Opdyke affirmed 
that he was the part owner of the property. Then Weed dis- 
cussed at length the financial dealings of Opdyke and David 
Dudley Field with General Fremont in the formation of 
the Mariposa mining company. And he concluded with 
an attack upon his most persistent and powerful adver- 
sary, the Tribune, by asserting that while that paper was 
falsely accusing him, the Tribune associates and corres- 
pondents were themselves making money out of government 
contracts, supplying the enemy through the New York 
custom-house (an incidental thrust at such anti-Weed men 
as Hiram Barney and Rufus Andrews), and engaging in 
cotton speculations. " It is alleged," Weed concluded, 
" that Mr. Greeley obtained Callicot's appointment, and 
shares profits with him. Of this I know nothing more than 
that a gentleman . . . informed me that drafts had come 
from Callicot to Mr. Greeley. But Camp . . . avows his 
connection with Mr. Greeley in cotton speculations." 1 The 
consequences of this scandalous quarrel on the eve of a 
most important political campaign evidently had no re- 
straining effect upon Weed. 

There was a whole crop of replies. Field wrote to the 
Post that the receipt of stock from Fremont was a counsel 
fee for real and necessary legal services and not, as Weed 
asserted, a part of a gratuity for promoting Fremont's 
political interests ; and he declared that Weed's attempt to 
adjust the value of his (Field's) work was sheer im- 

1 Albany Evening Journal, June 18. 



587] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 387 

pertinence. 1 Opdyke, in an open letter, 2 contented himself 
for the time with a denial of Weed's charges, but promised 
to seek redress from the courts later. In the following 
December Opdyke carried out this threat in a libel suit 
which attracted widespread attention. 3 The Post said, 
along with much else : " It is an old trick with rogues 
to shout stop thief, and we suspect that T. W. is making 
a great outcry against the dozen or more respectable private 
individuals whom he so wantonly assails to divert attention 
from his own sinister course." 4 

Greeley published the following curious editorial card : 

I, Horace Greeley, do solemnly declare . . . that I have 
been a partner in no contract, job, or undertaking of any sort, 
with, to, or for the Government of this State, or of the United 
States, since Abraham Lincoln became President; and that, 
except by the publication of advertisements in the Tribune at 
the usual and regular prices charged to advertisers generally, 
I have made no dollar of money out of either or any Govern- 
ment, whether by job, contract, commission or otherwise. 

(signed) Horace Greeley. 5 

Greeley also wrote a letter to the Albany Evening Journal, 
in which he said : 

Mr. Editor, good and true men whom I love and honor have 
appealed to me not to distract the Union party by persisting 
in personal feuds with Mr. Weed. Years ago, T. W. and I 

1 Printed in the Herald, June 23. 

2 Printed in the Herald, June 22. 

3 Herald, Sept. 6, Dec. 14 and the following days: Weed, Autobio- 
graphy, pp. 528-9. 

* New York Evening Post, June 20. 
5 Tribune, June 25. 



388 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [ 5 88 

were daily associates and (as I thought) friends. We have 
since separated, simply and only because one of us has come 
to believe and practise systematically using legislators and 
legislation to advance personal interests and promote private 
ends. Whatever may be asserted, there is not, there never 
was, another serious ground of difference between us. The 
City Railroad bills of i860, the whiskey legislation of the 
present session, illustrate the whole matter. 1 

This letter seems to have maddened Weed still more, and 
another epistle came from him, reiterating his former 
charges, attributing his separation from Greeley to the lat- 
ter's ambition, reproaching Greeley for his connection with 
Fourierism and the Maine laws. 2 reminding him of his will- 
ingness to let the cotton states withdraw from the Union, 
and scoring his war policy. 3 

There followed open letters from Opdyke, 4 Benjamin F. 
Camp, 5 and David Dudley Field, 6 showing the extent to 
which the animosity had grown. Opdyke spoke of Weed as 
" a person whom I long since proved to be as reckless of 
truth as he is bankrupt of character, and whose moral sensi- 
bilities have become so blunted in the practise of his vocation 
as lobby chief that he seems to be no longer capable of dis- 
tinguishing between right and wrong." Field declared 
that Weed's " presence in our party has done more than 
that of any other man to demoralize it." The controversy 
died down for a while, but a month later found Greeley and 

1 Tribune, June 24. 

2 For Greeley's connection with Fourierism, see Linn's Horace 
Greeley, pp. 79-84; for his advocacy of the Maine laws, see ibid., p. 172. 

3 Albany Evening Journal, June 25. 

4 Herald, July 2. 

5 Albany Evening Journal, June 28. 

6 Herald, June 30. 



589] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 389 

Raymond engaged in an editorial war, couched however in 
more polite terms, on the subject of Greeley's efforts at 
Niagara to bring about peace between the North and the 
South. 1 Of course, those outside the Union ranks were 
pleased at these dissensions. The Herald printed one of 
the letters quoted above under the title: " Weed the Wash- 
erwoman of the Republican Party," 2 and declared that the 
" irrepressible conflict " between the two wings of the party 
had begun in earnest. 8 Then too, there were at this time 
differences within the loyal leagues. 4 And all this strife 
came on top of the dissatisfaction that culminated in the 
Wade-Davis manifesto. 

Weed, however, soon obtained a great triumph over his 
adversaries. Lincoln and Weed " naturally ' took to each 

1 Tribune, Aug. 5; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 195. 
In December, Rufus F. Andrews wrote to Weed : " Why don't you enu- 
late the last virtue of Judas Iscariot and hang yourself?" and further 
on Andrews called Weed "an unscrupulous old liar" (Letter printed 
in the Herald, Dec. 12). 

1 Herald, June 27. 

3 Herald, June 14. The Albany Evening Journal (June 25) in an- 
swer to Greeley's complaints about the publication of Weed's letters, 
did not deny that they furnished ammunition to the enemy, but knew 
of no way to prevent it since Weed's opponents had begun the con- 
troversy. 

4 Herald, July 7, for resolutions considered in the Kings County 
General Committee, attacking the Union League for favoring the 
nomination of some other than Lincoln; Herald, July 16, for an ac- 
count of an effort at the meeting of the state council of the Loyal 
Union League to suppress local councils favorable to the Seward- 
Lincoln interest. At this meeting, a resolution was adopted by the 
state council disapproving and repudiating the action of council no. 
4 of Brooklyn in passing resolutions " nominating a candidate for the 
Presidency" (t. e. Lincoln), and "circulating the same among the 
councils of the State." The Herald correspondent at the Saratoga 
meeting of the state council, held on Aug. 3, reported similar discord 
between the Lincoln and Fremont men there (Herald, Aug. 7). 



390 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [590 

other ' from the very day they met," said Swett, " and their 
relations grew gradually more agreeable and friendly," the 
President frequently sending for Weed to consult him on 
important questions. 1 It was the practicality, the good 
sense, and the tact of the veteran New York politician 
which probably attracted Lincoln. Seward, too, Lincoln 
found congenial 2 — Chase becoming ever less so. More- 
over, the Weed faction in New York claimed to be the 
special friends of the President ; 3 and when Chase began 
to intrigue for the presidency, Weed apparently was able to 
convince Lincoln of the truth of that assertion. And yet. 
at the beginning of 1864, Weed contemplated opposing a 
second term for Lincoln. The old man evidently was get- 
ting ready to commit the same sort of treachery against the 
President that he once attempted against Fillmore. 4 In the 

1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 295, quoting Swett; ibid., p. 288, quot- 
ing George E. Baker. 

2 Bancroft's Seward, ii, p. 358 ; F. W. Seward's Seward at Washing- 
ton, iii, p. 197. 

3 Schucker's Chase, p. 477 ; the Albany Evening Journal of May 24th 
said : " Four-fifths of the offices of Customs and an equal proportion 
of the Internal Revenue Officers in the city of New York, are hostile 
to the President. Men holding sinecure offices in the Custom House 
are now secretly at work, throughout the State, for the Cleveland 
Convention." Weed wrote to David Davis : " They will all be against 
him [Lincoln] in '64; why does he persist in giving them weapons 
with which they may be able not only to defeat his renomination, but 
to destroy the government?" (Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 440). As 
Davis was one of Lincoln's most trusted counselors, this letter or its 
contents was probably brought to Lincoln's attention. 

4 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 198. In a letter to Abram Wakeman, 
dated Oct. 13th, Weed said: "My reasons for desiring a change of 
Administration are known to those who have read what I felt con- 
strained to say since December, i860, ... It was this dread of ultra 
Abolition embarrassing Mr. Lincoln in the past, and threatening em- 
barrassment in the future, that induced me to hope for a change of 
Administration. I believed that a Democratic President, as earnest 
as Mr. Lincoln against the Rebellion, and exempted from the in- 



591 ] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 391 

spring of 1864, Weed wrote a letter to David Davis, who 
showed it to Lincoln, wherein was expressed the writer's 
dissatisfaction with Lincoln's course. Weed was evidently 
urgent for prompt action upon some matter — probably the 
patronage thus far possessed by his opponents. 1 Later, he 
wrote to Seward : " Knowing that I was not satisfied with 
the President, they came to me for cooperation ; but my ob- 
jection to Mr. Lincoln is that he has done too much for 
those who now seek to drive him out of the field." 2 

During that same year, some of the men closest to Weed, 
including Raymond and Abram Wakeman, made a raid on 
Gideon Welles in an effort to get the latter to reorganize the 
Brooklyn Navy Yard for party purposes. 3 This pressure 
on the part of Weed and his followers and the danger of de- 
fection in that quarter were clearly appreciated by Lincoln; 
for the latter wrote to Chase that the appointment of Judge 
Hogeboom (long a prominent anti-Weed man 4 ) to be gen- 
eral appraiser " brought me to, and has ever since kept me 
at, the verge of open revolt. Now the appointment of Mr. 
Field would precipitate me in it, unless Senator Morgan, 
and those feeling as he does, could be brought to concur in 
it." 5 

fluences which have beset and badgered him from the beginning, could 
prosecute the War more successfully; ..." (Printed in the Albany 
Evening Journal, Oct. 14). 

1 Letter of Davis to Weed, printed in Barnes' Memoir of Weed, 
pp. 444-5. 

2 Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 366, quoting ms. letter of 
Weed to Seward. 

3 "Diary of Gideon Welles," Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1909, pp. 356, 
359, 361, 2,62. 

4 He was one of those who took part in the conferences of anti- 
Weed men in 1861, mentioned above in chapter iv {Diary and Cor- 
respondence of S. P. Chase, American Historical Association Report 
for 1902, ii, pp. 485, 487). 

5 Letter of Lincoln to Chase, in Warden's Chase, p. 613. 



392 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [592 

This last mentioned question of New York patronage 
was the occasion of Chase's resignation in June. The Sec- 
retary selected Maunsell B. Field to fill the vacancy caused 
by the resignation of John J. Cisco as assistant-treasurer at 
New York City. Cisco was a holdover from the last ad- 
ministration, and Senator Morgan had already presented to 
Chase a complaint that there were among the clerks and 
officials under Cisco only about a half dozen Union men, 
and that the rest were Democrats. 1 Now, Morgan 2 vigor- 
ously and firmly opposed the nomination of Field, not only 
on the ground of unfitness but also for political reasons. 
Field was endorsed by some of the most honorable business 
men of the metropolis, including Jonathan Sturgis, Peter 
Cooper, Phelps, Dodge and Company, as well as by ex- 
Governor John A. King, Greeley, and others ; 3 and he had 
been recommended by Cisco, under whom he had formerly 
served before becoming assistant secretary of the treasury.* 
On the other hand, there is some evidence that Field, de- 
spite his talents, was not a suitable man for the office. 5 

However this may be, the fact seems to have been that the 
Weed-Seward faction were determined to get hold not merely 
of the assistant-treasurership but also of the numerous sub- 
ordinate positions connected therewith. 6 Senator Mor- 

1 Warden's Chase, p. 609, quoting Chase's diary. 

1 That Weed was back of Morgan is indicated by Weed's writing to 
Fessenden, recommending for the position Morgan's choice (Warden's 
Chase, p. 623, citing Chase's diary). 

3 Chase's memorandum for the President, in Schucker's Chase, p. 507. 

4 Schucker's Chase, p. 484. 

5 Chittenden's Recollections, p. 371 ; " Diary of Gideon Welles," At- 
lantic Monthly, Sept. 1909, p. 348: " I doubt if any one but Chase would 
ithink of him [M. B. Field] for the place [assistant treasurer at New 
York] . . . "; Rhodes' History of the United States, iv, p. 479. 

6 Schucker's Chase, pp. 484-5; Hart's Chase, p. 315; "Mr. Morgan 
urged that the political result of his [Field's] appointment would be ex- 
tremely unfavorable to the Union party in New York" (Nicolay and 
Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 92. 



593] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 393 

gan proposed Richard M. Blatchford, Dudley S. Gregory, 
and Thomas Hillhouse. Chase was obdurate. Lincoln 
refused to displease Morgan in the matter. 1 " By accident 
rather than by any design of mine," the President was 
later reported to have said to Field, " the radicals have 
got possession of the most important offices in New York 
. . . Had I under these circumstances consented to your 
appointment, it would have been another radical triumph, 
and I couldn't afford one." 2 And so, though Cisco was 
persuaded to remain in office, Chase resigned. Where- 
upon Weed proclaimed in the Albany Evening Journal 
his great satisfaction, saying, " Heaven be praised for this 
gleam of sunshine ;" 3 and in a later letter, he wrote : 

The despotism from which I felt ... a sense of relief, is 
well understood at Washington. Mr. Chase, in the exercise 
of the vast patronage of his department, was a despot. . . . 
The organization of the New York Custom House is a living, 
burning disgrace. Mr. Chase had evidence of infamous prac- 
tices but refused to act. . . . He has known for three years 
that gross custom house dishonesty exists at Oswego. But he 
gave " no sign." . . . There are other and grave reasons for 
rejoicing that Mr. Chase is out of the Cabinet. He abolition- 
ized that Cabinet ; and if our government should be overthrown 
and our Union severed he, as the chief of a class to which 
Sumner, Greeley, Phillips, etc., etc., belong, will be responsible 
for the calamity. . . . 

Then came much more on the share of Chase and his fol- 
lowers in prolonging the war, uniting the South, dividing 

1 Letter of Lincoln to Chase, in Schucker's Chase, p. 507. 

2 Maunsell B. Field, Memories of Many Men, p. 300. 

3 Albany Evening Journal, June 30. 



394 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [594 

the North, alienating the border states, etc., in regular 
Democratic style. 1 

What Weed said about the New York custom-house 
apparently had a basis of truth. Even the Tribune ad- 
mitted that there had been abuses there — wastefulness and 
extravagance, the use of public money for partisan purposes, 
and the subjection of commerce to burdens; but the Tribune 
excused these evils by declaring that they were of long 
standing. 2 Since the beginning of the year, the pressure 
on the President to displace Collector Barney had been very 
strong, the latter not only having attempted to oppose the 
Weed-Seward faction, 3 but also having drawn down upon 
himself the displeasure of some influential anti-Weed men. 4 
And so, in February, Lincoln wished Barney to resign and 
accept a diplomatic post ; 5 but Barney refused. Then too, 
the Collector's private clerk, A. M. Palmer, who was a 
member of the Union State Committee, was arrested and 
lodged in Fort Lafayette. Irregularities, moreover, were 
discovered in the office of one of Barney's chief subordin- 
ates, Henry B. Stanton, prominent as a leading radical; 
and he was dismissed. Finally, in September, Barney re- 
signed ; the surveyor of the port, Ruf us Andrews, who was 
a well-known radical, was removed; Simeon Draper was 
named for collector; Postmaster Wakeman succeeded An- 
drews ; and James Kelly was appointed postmaster. 6 

1 Albany Evening Journal, July 16. 

2 Tribune, Sept. 8. Schucker's Chase, p. 479, exculpates Barney and 
Palmer, though admitting the existence of irregularities. 

3 C. R. Fish, " Lincoln and the Patronage," quoting Chase mss. 
(American Historical Review, viii, p. 62). 

4 Warden's Chase, p. 601; Lincoln to Chase, ibid., p. 613; Hart's 
Chase, p. 218. 

5 Lincoln to Chase, Warden's Cltase, p. 572 ; Schucker's Chase, p. 479. 

6 Herald, Sept. 6, 17. 



595] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 395 

Draper, Wakeman, and Kelly were all good Weed men ; * 
and thus this important patronage, which Weed and his 
followers had so long coveted, was at last captured from his 
adversaries. 

In the Union State Convention, which assembled at 
Syracuse on September 7th, with Weed, Greeley, and 
Opdyke the notable personages present, 2 the anti-Weed 
faction had the greater strength. The admission by a vote 
of 150 to 120 of both delegations from New York City, 3 
without reference to a committee and against the remon- 
strances of Abram Wakeman, 4 was apparently a radical 
victory. 5 When the convention gathered, it was almost a 
foregone conclusion that Congressman Reuben E. Fenton 
would be nominated for governor. 6 Fenton was of the 
radical wing, 7 but nevertheless had managed to obtain the 

1 For Kelly's alleged snubbing of Weed, see p. 225, note 5 ; despite this 
incident Kelly was apparently a Weed follower. 

2 Herald, Sept. 7. 

3 The differences between the Unionist factions in New York City 
had already engaged the attention of the Union State Committee 
(Herald, July 28), and formed the principal point at issue between 
the two wings of the party at the Syracuse convention (Herald, Sept. 
8; Tribune, Sept. 9). 

4 Herald, Sept. 8. 

5 Herald, Sept. 8. That this was a defeat for Weed is corroborated 
in a letter of Andrews to Weed (Herald, Dec. 12) in which the 
former said : " I had beaten you and your allies and myrmidons in 
the State Conventions of May and September 1864." 

•A Tribune editorial of August 30th said: "For Governor, we have 
seen but a single name publicly suggested — that of Reuben E. Fenton, 
. . . Unless there are adverse movements whereof we are unadvised, 
his nomination is already virtually assured." 

7 "... it is his [Fenton's] ill-luck to be claimed by both factions " 
— Argus, Sept. 9. Yet an editorial in the same paper of September 
8th stated that Fenton came from the same wing of the party as 
Wadsworth. Weed had not been on friendly terms with Fenton 
(Barnes* Memoir of Weed, p. 444). 



396 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [596 

support of Weed or at least acceptance by him. 1 Rev. Dr. 
Dix in his Memoirs of John A. Dix says that Weed, though 
anxious to have the General head the ticket, had " by a com- 
bination of untoward circumstances been placed in a posi- 
tion in which he was unable and unwilling to act." 2 Yet, 
on the floor of the convention a delegate brought forth once 
more Dix's name. It was hailed with applause. However, 
doubts were expressed as to whether Dix was willing to 
stand fully and without reserve on the party platform 
(though of course no one questioned his patriotism or loy- 
alty to the administration). Then too, it was announced 
that Dix had written that he could not accept the nomina- 
tion. 3 The Tribune subsequently stated editorially " Had 
he [Dix] simply said, ' I am of and with the Union party, 
and will serve it as it shall deem best,' he would have been 
nominated by acclamation." 4 Lyman Tremain also was 
nominated. The ballot resulted as follows: Fenton 
2 47K '> Tremain 69 ; Dix 35^4. 5 This outcome was probably 
due to a division in the radical ranks between Fenton and 
Tremain, and to the support of the former by the Weed 
adherents. 6 The balloting for the nomination for lieuten- 
ant-governor resulted in that place going to an anti-Weed 
man, Thomas G. Alvord, who received 246 votes to 963/2 
for Waldo Hutchins, 19 for Richard M. Blatchford, and 35 
scattering. Both Alvord and Hutchins were radicals, 

1 Barnes' Memoir of Weed, p. 444. 

2 Dix's Memoirs of John A. Dix, ii, pp. 171, 173. 

3 Herald, Sept. 8. This letter, addressed to Ward Hunt, is printed 
in the Tribune, Sept. 12. See also Dix's Memoirs of John A. Dix, ii, 
P- 173. 

* Tribune, Sept. 9. 

5 Herald, Sept. 8. 

6 Herald, Sept. II. 



597] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 397 

while Blatchford belonged to the Weed-Seward faction. 
The large majority of the first named was due to the fact 
that Hutchins was less acceptable to the Weed delegates, 
who accordingly changed from Blatchford to Alvord. 1 An- 
other indication of the strength of the anti-Weed men in 
the convention was the ballot on presidential electors at 
large. This resulted as follows: Horace Greeley 215, Pres- 
ton King igi]/2, Daniel S. Dickinson 143, Richard M. 
Blatchford 86, J. S. T. Stranahan 27, scattering 24, 2 Greeley 
and King being thus chosen. 

The resolutions which were adopted, strongly favored the 
continuance of the war until the rebels submitted, made a 
bid for the support of the soldiers by pointing to " the sig- 
nificant fact that not one State whose legislation is con- 
trolled by our political adversaries has authorized and en- 
abled our soldiers to vote," and emphasized the recent vic- 
tories of the Union armies. Seymour's record as governor, 
however, was not attacked. 3 

As has been said, the peace men in New York State were 
very active during the summer of 1864, aiming to influence 
the action of the forthcoming Democratic National Con- 
vention. Fernando Wood was the leading spirit in this 
agitation. It was alleged by his enemies, both Democratic 
and Unionist, that the movement was simply an artifice of 
the Mozart chief to enable him to drive fresh bargains 4 — a 
likely accusation so far as Wood's own share was concerned, 
considering his past career. At this time Wood had need 
of all his cunning. His senatorial ambitions had been de- 
feated, both he and his brother Ben had been utterly dis- 
regarded at the Democratic State Convention, Mozart 

1 Herald, Sept. 8. 

2 Ibid. s Ibid. 

4 Tribune, June 23 ; Herald, June 18, Aug. 22. 



398 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [598 

Hall had recently split into two rival organizations, 1 and 
John McKeon was a power at the New York City Hall. 2 
In June, 1864, the state committee which had been created 
by Wood's mass peace convention in the previous year, 
assembled again. 3 The New York Copperheads kept in 
touch with those of other states, for leading peace Demo- 
crats from without were present on this occasion. At a 
similar consultation a month later, with such distinguished 
Copperheads as Voorhees of Indiana and Singleton of Illi- 
nois in attendance, it was resolved to hold another mass 
peace convention at Syracuse. 4 A few days later, Singleton 
and Congressman Brooks addressed a slimly attended peace 
meeting in New York City. 5 At the beginning of August, 
the Mozart Hall General Committee unanimously adopted 
resolutions declaring that " the masses of the Democratic 
party in this city and State are for peace, for an immediate 
cessation of hostilities, and for the instant inauguration of 
negotiations for ending the present war; and that we de- 
mand a platform favoring an armistice and a convention of 
States from the Chicago Presidential Convention." The 
resolutions further instructed such delegates as belonged to 
the Mozart General Committee and recommended to the 
rest of the New York delegation to vote for no man for 
the presidential or vice-presidential nomination who favored 

1 Herald, Aug. 4, 6. An advertisement in the Herald of August 4th 
stated that at a meeting of the Regular Mozart Hall General Com- 
mittee, it was resolved " That we revoke the power delegated to a 
special committee of five to dispense the patronage of Mozart Hall, 
and which has been exercised only by one man to the detriment of 
the party." 

2 Herald, Aug. 22. 

s Herald, June 22 ; Tribune, June 22, 23. 

4 Tribune, July 23. 

''Herald, July 27; Tribune, July 27. 



599] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 399 

" the further prosecution cf this useless, bloody and ruin- 
ous war." x 

The mass peace convention met at Syracuse on August 
1 8th. The attitude of the Argus toward this body shows 
how far the Regency wing — the main body of Democrats 
in the State — had progressed toward Copperheadism. Be- 
fore the editor discovered that this movement was to be 
used as a lever to work against the Regency, the Argus 
spoke of the convention and its objects in a sympathetic 
tone. An editorial said : 

It has been the custom of the Republicans ... to denounce 
men who talked about peace, but that time has now gone by. 
. . . Out of the afflictions of the country, the conviction has 
grown upon their [the people's] minds, that there must at 
some time be an end of war — that peace can never return to 
us except by a conference between those engaged in deadly 
conflict — that it would be honorable to us — honorable to both 
belligerents, under a suspension of hostilities, to freely confer 
together through the medium of a National Convention, con- 
cerning the possibility of terminating this strife and of restor- 
ing fraternal relations on the basis of a continuance of the 
Federal Union. 2 

Two days later, the same journal declared that it " did not 
wonder . . . that the Peace Party was inspirited and en- 
couraged by the revolting aspects which Mr. Lincoln's 
course, his general mal-administration, and the resulting 
failures of our army, had lent to the war question, and by 
the reaction of public sentiment against him." 3 If the 
Argus did not here pronounce the war a failure, it plainly 
showed that it was not inclined to disagree with those who 

1 Herald, Aug. 5. 
1 Argus, Aug. 18. 
3 Argus, Aug. 20. 



4 00 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [600 

thought so, provided only that they acted under the leader- 
ship of the state organization. 

At the convention it was evident that the Copperhead 
strength was not limited to the metropolitan district; for 
large delegations from the cities in the central part of the 
State were reported as present. Crowds gathered at two 
open air assemblages in the afternoon. At the evening 
meeting, the hall was packed. The principal attractions 
were Vallandigham, ex-Governor Weller of California, and 
Fernando Wood. Vallandigham received an enthusiastic 
welcome and his thoroughgoing peace speech of more than 
an hour's length was listened to with attention and received 
with applause. An ultra peace address and a series of reso- 
lutions were presented and adopted, though there was some 
doubt as to whether the next to the last resolution was 
carried or not. 1 This provided for a committee to go to the 
Chicago convention, there to represent and advocate the 
opinions of the New York peace Democracy. Those who 
engineered the affair declared that this resolution had been 
adopted, and the committee including Fernando Wood was 
duly appointed. In fact, Wood apparently was playing a 
game but slightly different from that which he tried to use 
at Charleston four years before. The other resolutions ex- 
pressed the belief that it was the duty of the coming Chicago 
convention 

to give expression to this beneficent spirit of peace and to de- 
clare as the purpose of the Democratic party, if it shall recover 
power, to cause this desolating war to cease by the calling of a 
national convention, in which all the States shall be repre- 
sented in their sovereign capacity, that to this end an immediate 

1 Herald, Aug. 19, 26 (containing a letter of S. T. Suit, secretary 
of the peace delegation to the editor of the World, denying that the 
resolution in question was stricken out). 



6oi] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 401 

armistice shall be declared. . . . That if in the platform and 
candidates of the Chicago Convention the now pervading 
peace sentiments of the country shall be disregarded, and that 
body shall place another war candidate and platform before 
the people, . . . there will be no real issue to decide at that 
election. 

Further, they condemned at great length the actions of the 
administration as arbitrary and despotic, and asserted that 
the reply of the President to Messrs. Clay and Holcomb 1 
was 

an official avowal that the object of the war is not for the 
restoration of the Union, but the destruction of slavery in the 
Southern States or permanent separation, and furnishes un- 
mistakable evidence that the party now in power have deluded 
the people into the granting of unlimited means and money 
for . . . preserving the Union, which they have used and are 
still using for the base end of overthrowing State institutions, 
advancing party interests and establishing them in permanent 
despotic power. 

Finally, a state committee was designated. 2 

On the other hand, there was an organized movement in 
New York, led by Hiram Ketchum, Jr., in behalf of the 
nomination of McClellan. As early as March 17th a 
crowded and enthusiastic mass-meeting, presided over by 
Amos Kendall, postmaster-general under Jackson, was held 
at Cooper Institute with this object in view. 3 But the local 
politicians of prominence held aloof. 4 By the beginning 

1 Cf. supra, p. 342, note I. 

2 Herald, Aug. 19; Argus, Aug. 20. 

3 Herald, Mar. 18; Tribune, Mar. 18. 

4 At a McClellan meeting in New York City in August, Hiram 
Ketchum, Jr. stated that "when they commenced to organize Mc- 



4 02 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [602 

of summer, McClellan ward organizations and a central 
executive committee had been formed. 1 These men co-' 
operated with McClellan advocates of other states in taking 
steps toward the holding of a convention of the " conserva- 
tive " voters of the country at Chicago on July 2nd,- in- 
tending of course to influence the Democratic National Con- 
vention called to meet two days later at the same place. 
Upon the postponement of the latter body to August 29th, 
the date of the " Union Conservative National Conven- 
tion " was fixed for August 27th. 3 In August McClellan 
meetings were held by the various ward associations of New 
York City; 4 and on the evening of August 10th a monster 
demonstration took place in Union Square. Here again, 
among those who addressed this gathering, men of political 
prominence, with the exceptions of John B. Haskin, Isaiah 
Rynders, and Hiram Ketchum, were conspicuous by their 
absence. 5 Later, Ketchum was appointed by the McClellan 
State Central Committee to proceed to Chicago to further 
McClellan's nomination. 6 Thus far Tammany Hall had 

Clellan clubs in the City of New York, there was hardly a politician 
but what shook his head and said that it was no go. After they had 
gained a little strength, a meeting was held in Cooper Institute, but 
not a single man of political eminence could be found in the city to 
act as president, so that the committee were obliged to import Amos 
Kendall from Washington" {Herald, Aug. 11). 

1 Herald, June 16. 2 Ibid. 

s Herald, June 26. 

* Herald, Aug. 5, 6, 9. 

5 Herald, Aug. n ; Tribune, Aug. II. The Herald estimated the num- 
ber present as not less than one hundred thousand ; the Tunes at thirty 
thousand; the Sun at least sixty thousand; the Journal of Commerce 
seventy-five thousand. The Tribune, while admitting that it " was a 
large meeting," thought that this demonstration was not half so large 
as the war meeting following the fall of Fort Sumter (Tribune, 
Aug. 12. 

6 Herald, Aug. 18. 



603] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 403 

been silent; but just before the convention her General 
Committee enthusiastically and unanimously adopted reso- 
lutions in favor of McClellan. 1 

About a week before the delegates gathered in Chi- 
cago, the Argus came out with an authoritative announce- 
ment that Governor Seymour would not be a candidate 
for the presidency. 2 Yet, when the convention met, the 
peace men led by the two Woods revived the talk of 
naming Seymour with the intention probably of using him 
to kill off McClellan. 3 Around the hotels the anti-McClel- 
lanites talked much, and betting by outsiders that McClellan 
would not be nominated was lively. 4 Dean Richmond, 
however, was firm for the General, 5 and a majority of 
the New York delegation was for him. 8 On Saturday, 
August 27th, the delegation caucused and organized. Sev- 
eral of the members having been delayed by the railroads, 
the McClellan supporters sought to fill the vacancies and 
to take an informal ballot on a candidate for the presiden- 
tial nomination. These steps were stoutly opposed by 
Cozans and McKeon of New York City. Governor Sey- 
mour favored postponing a vote in order that further con- 
sultation might be held; while beseeching his friends to 
abandon further thought of his own name and acknowl- 
edging the unequaled popularity of McClellan, he sug- 
gested Judge Nelson and James Guthrie as men whose ex- 
perience perhaps fitted them better for the office than Mc- 

1 Herald, Aug. 27 ; Tribune, Aug. 29. 

2 Argus, Aug. 19. 

3 Herald, Aug. 28, Sept. 5 ; dispatch to the World, Aug. 29, signed 
M. M. (probably Manton Marble) ; Argus, Aug. 30. 

4 Herald, Sept. 5 ; Tribune, Sept. 5. 

5 Herald, Aug. 28. 

6 Herald, Aug. 28, 29; Tribune, Aug. 31. 



4 04 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [604 

Clellan's. Samuel J. Tilden followed with a long speech. 
He declared that Nelson was too old and Guthrie not popu- 
lar; Seymour's withdrawal having been reiterated, he 
(Tilden) should vote for McClellan. The supporters of 
the General had shown their overwhelming superiority by 
defeating a resolution offered by one of the anti-McClellan 
men; but in deference to the wishes of the minority, the 
delegation adjourned to Monday. 1 

This prolonged session of the New York delegation with- 
out taking a vote for a candidate revived the hopes of 
the opponents of McClellan that New York might give 
a complimentary vote to Seymour. 2 Though the delega- 
tion of every state, save New York, Kansas, and Iowa 
had now caucused, with the result that McClellan had 
a majority in all except Ohio, yet if New York stood 
(by Seymour, McClellan could hardly obtain the neces- 
sary two-thirds vote. Yet this by no means meant that 
Seymour would be nominated — a fact which the Regency 
leaders doubtless considered. On the following Monday 
morning the New York delegation again met. Seymour 
made a speech declaring that he had no idea of allowing the 
use of his name for the presidential nomination. A ballot 
was then taken, resulting in McClellan receiving 55 votes, 
Judge Nelson 9, Guthrie I, and Charles O'Conor i. 1 

On the same day, the convention was called to order by 
August Belmont. Governor Seymour was chosen presi- 
dent of the assemblage, and on taking the chair made a long 

1 Special dispatch to the New York World, Aug. 29, signed M. M. 
(probably Manton Marble). 

2 Herald, Aug. 29. 

3 Herald, Aug. 30, corrected by correspondence published in the 
Herald, Sept. 5. 



605] PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1864 405 

speech embodying sentiments to which he had so often given 
utterance since the beginning of the war. 1 No ballot for 
the presidential nomination was taken during the first day's 
session, though several bitter speeches against McClellan 
were made. Meanwhile, Samuel J. Tilden was said to have 
fought strenuously in the committee on resolutions against 
Vallandigham and the extreme peace men. 2 Vallandigham 
himself subsequently boasted that he had carried the second 
resolution of the platform — the one declaring the war a 
failure — through the sub-committee and the committee " in 
spite of the most desperate and persistent opposition on the 
part of William Cassidy, editor of the Albany Argus, and 
his friends." 3 

On that night the peace men, including Harris and Long 
of Ohio, the two Woods, and the committee from the Syra- 
cuse peace convention, worked hard to prevent McClellan's 
nomination. An anti-McClellan demonstration was held, 
and efforts were made to unite upon Seymour those who 
were against the General. 4 The former, however, refused 
under any circumstances to permit his name to be used. 5 
Yet, when the ballot in the convention was taken, some dele- 
gates gave their votes for him; but the Governor directed 
that they be announced as having been cast for Seymour 
of Connecticut. 6 In the selection of the vice-presidential 
candidate, New York's action was decisive. On the 
first ballot, Guthrie of Kentucky led. He probably would 

1 Herald, Aug. 31. 

2 Herald, Sept. 5 ; Cook's Life of Tilden, p. 82. 

8 Letter of Vallandigham, dated Oct. 22, 1864, printed in the Herald, 
Oct. 27. The Argus denied the allegation of Vallandigham. It said, 
" Mr. Cassidy took no part in the matter" (Argus, Oct. 28). 

4 Herald, Aug. 31, Sept. 1. 

5 Herald, Sept. 1 ; Tribune, Sept. 5. 

6 Herald, Sept. 1 ; Tribune, Sept. 5. 



4 o6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [606 

have been nominated, but for the fact that the New York 
delegation, in order to appease those dissatisfied with the 
choice of McClellan for first place, changed to Pendleton 
on the second ballot. 1 Pennsylvania followed New York's 
example; and thus in addition to the platform, the Demo- 
cratic ticket was handicapped with a candidate of peace pro- 
clivities. Since it does not appear that Dean Richmond or 
his representatives made any fight outside of the committee 
against the platform or against the nomination of Pendle- 
ton, it can scarcely be claimed that the New York leader 
exhibited on this occasion any great political sagacity. 

1 Herald, Sept. 5 ; Tribune, Sept. 5 supports this indirectly. 



CHAPTER XV 

The Defeat of the Peace Party 

That the Unionists of this State did not suffer from 
their dissensions as much as might have been expected, was 
due to the overshadowing nature of the issues arising from 
the war. At the same time that the Copperhead press of the 
metropolis was spreading incendiary sentiments, while the 
peace advocates were active and many Southern men and 
women were in New York City, 1 Governor Seymour's ac- 
tions during the spring and summer of 1864 were such as to 
make administration supporters realize the necessity of lay- 
ing aside factional quarrels. Two judges of the New York 
Supreme Court had already rendered decisions holding that 
the state tribunals had the right to inquire into the legality of 
detention in the case of a soldier in the federal service, for 
whose discharge a writ of habeas corpus had been issued 
by a state court. 2 Would Seymour support the judiciary 
with force, if necessary? In the case of the draft, he 
privately admitted that forcible resistance would aid rather 
than embarrass the government. 3 Moreover, we are now 
in a position to see that his whole nature was disinclined 
to violence, however much he might have desired to bring 
to a clear issue of law the questions wherein he opposed the 

1 Tribune, July 26, as to Southerners in New York City. 

2 Argus, Aug. 26; Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, pp. 488, 489. 

3 Letter of Seymour to Tilden, dated Aug. 6, 1863, in Letters and 
Literary Memorials of Samuel J . Tilden, i, p. 184. 

607] 407 



4 o8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [608 

administration. But at the time, men did not perceive all 
this. And Seymour's official acts more than once placed 
him on the verge of that attitude which loyal people feared 
and Copperheads hoped for. 

The seizure of the New York World and the New York 
Journal of Commerce x on the 19th of May and the arrest 
of their editors produced great indignation among Demo- 
crats. The Albany Argus fumed. " It behooves citizens 
of the State," it said in one editorial, " to consult, in a time 
like this, in regard to what action shall be taken — not what 
words shall be uttered — to protect their rights." 2 Sey- 
mour directed the district attorney of New York County, 
A. Oakey Hall, to inquire into the facts connected with the 
occurrence and to prosecute any one who had acted illegally. 
The Governor said that his proclamation at the time of the 
draft riot, giving warning that " the laws of the State must 
be enforced, its peace and order maintained, and the prop- 
erty of its citizens protected at every hazard," was not 
intended merely for that occasion or against any particular 
class of men. Any action against the editors of the sup- 
pressed papers outside of legal procedure was criminal. 

Our soldiers in the field will battle in vain for constitutional 
liberty if persons or property or opinions are trampled upon 
at home. . . . They must not find when they come back that 
their personal and fireside rights have been despoiled. In 
addition to the general obligation to enforce the laws of the 
land, there are local reasons why they must be upheld in the 
city of New York. If they are not, its commerce and great- 
ness will be broken down ; 

and the Governor enlarged upon this congenial theme and 

1 For this incident, see Rhodes' History of the United States, iv, p. 
468. 

2 Argus, May 23; also Argus, May 25, 26, for editorials, articles, etc., 
denouncing the seizure. 



609] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 409 

upon the fourth and fifth amendments to the constitution of 
the United States. He concluded that the state and local 
authorities must repel the ruinous inference that such arbi- 
trary actions could be tolerated in New York. " In mak- 
ing your inquiries, and in prosecuting the parties implicated, 
you will call upon the sheriff of the county and the heads 
of the police department for any needed assistance. The 
failure to give this by any official under my control will be 
deemed a sufficient cause for his removal." 1 

A Democratic judge, Russel, instructed the grand jury 
that, if the laws of the State in reference to the protection 
of person and property had been violated, the parties con- 
cerned, no matter what their station, must answer for the 
wrong; nor could any order of the President of the United 
States or other official be any protection to those executing 
it; if those who took and maintained forcible possession of 
the newspaper establishments numbered three or more, they 
were liable as for a riot. 2 The grand jury, however, re- 
fused to bring in an indictment, declaring that it was in- 
expedient to inquire into the subject. 3 

Seymour promptly enjoined upon District Attorney Hall 
to lay the matter before a proper magistrate. 4 Hall accord- 
ingly went before Judge Russel and formally accused Gen- 
eral Dix and his subordinates concerned in the seizure, of 
kidnapping, inciting a riot, and forcibly entering and detain- 
ing property. 5 Russel thereupon granted warrants for the 
arrest of General Dix and others. 6 Dix's counsel announced 
that the General was willing to submit himself to the civil 

1 Seymour .to District Attorney Hall, printed in the Herald, May 25. 

2 Herald, June 14. 

3 Herald, June 25 ; letter of Seymour to Hall, Herald, July 2. 

4 Letter of Seymour to Hall, printed in the Herald, July 2. 

5 Herald, July 2. 6 Ibid. 



4 io NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [610 

authorities; 1 but subsequently Lincoln directed Dix not to 
relieve himself of his command during the war or to per- 
mit himself to be deprived of his liberty because of obeying 
a military order of the President. 2 Seymour now wrote 
to the District Attorney to enforce the laws of the State 
irrespective of the orders of the President. 3 Argument 
was heard in court, Dix's counsel, Edwards Pierrepont and 
William M. Evarts, pleading the act of March 3, 1863 as 
protecting their client. Judge Russel's decision referred the 
case again to the grand jury, 5 and that was as far as the 
matter went. The Governor, after so much bluster, once 
more disappointed the Copperheads. Whatever political 
capital the Democrats might have gotten by the arbitrary 
suppression of the two newspapers was probably lost by a 
weak endeavor in the midst of a civil war to arrest and pun- 
ish the military commander of the district for obeying the 
orders of his official superior. 

The Governor's course in connection with the President's 
call on New York State for 12,000 one hundred days men 6 
to aid in repelling Early was not what it ought to have been. 
True, Seymour had been most wrongfully blamed for leav- 
ing New York City unprotected by ordering its militia to 
Pennsylvania in 1863 an ^ the outrageous accusation had 
been made that he had done this as part of a Copperhead 
conspiracy to leave the draft rioters full play. 7 It was also 

1 Herald, July 2. 2 Herald, July 7. 3 Herald, July 8. 

4 Herald, July 10 ; for this act, cf. supra, p. 346. 

5 Herald, Aug. 7. 

6 For the hundred days men, see Rhodes' History of the United 
States, iv, p. 498, note 5. 

7 Supra, p. 322. As a sample, the following from a Tribune editorial 
of July 9th may be quoted : " It is quite time that the eminent friend of 
these rioters should get up another diversion in favor of Jeff Davis & 
Co., and manage it better than the last was engineered." 



6n] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 4I i 

true that the Union legislators had shown a distrust of the 
Governor by not providing appropriations for an increase 
in the militia. Then too, there was some danger of rebel in- 
vasion from Canada. Moreover, most of the state forces 
were in New York City and Brooklyn and it was necessary 
to guard against further outbreaks like that of the previous 
year. Yet, it seems that Seymour had a sufficient number of 
regiments at his disposal to have been able, without danger 
of domestic disturbance, to have ordered some of them to 
the front. 1 He sent eight hundred men and designated as 
the remainder of the quota seven other regiments as yet but 
little more than skeleton organizations and hence having 

1 Both the Albany Evening Journal and the Argus defended Seymour 
on this occasion. The former claimed that there were but 15,000 
militia in the State, of which 9,000 at least were in New York City 
and Brooklyn ; that they were " distributed through skeleton regi- 
ments " and could hardly be made available except in a few cases, un- 
less the regiments were consolidated or filled up (Albany Evening 
Journal, July 9). The New York City papers, however, gave no 
hints that such was the state of the militia there. During 1863, eigh- 
teen regiments had been organized and completed {supra, p. 361). The 
Argus in defense of the Governor said : " Why did not the President 
announce that troops were wanted for the special duty of repelling the 
invasion and guarding Washington? Doubtless any number of volun- 
teer militia could have been raised and sent forward ere this for such 
a special purpose. But no such assurance has been given. Men were 
called for one hundred days, and to the inquiry whether thirty day 
men would be received it was answered, ' they would be of no use 
to General Grant.' They certainly would be of use in defence of the 
Capital against this raid; but they would not be available to the 
front [sic] in the campaign against Richmond. There is no question 
that the militia have misgivings and hesitations on this point. Most 
of the regiments would hasten to the defence of the Capital ; but 
many of them would hesitate to volunteer for one hundred days 
against Richmond." Even if all the facts were as the Argus stated, 
still Seymour does not appear in this affair as an ardent supporter of 
the government. Morton or Curtin would hardly have acted as Sey- 
mour then did. 



4 i2 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [612 

first to fill up their ranks. 1 He also issued another procla- 
mation, 2 appealing to the people of New York to join the 
National Guard. " Unless this is done at once," he said, 
" I cannot respond to the call now made by the President ;" 
and then came a constitutional essay on the value of militia. 
At that time, the Confederates were close to Washington! 
Seymour's order to increase the militia by 75,000 un- 
fortunately was issued at about the same time that he took 
his decided stand against General Dix. Consequently, the 
Governor did not escape suspicions that he desired this large 
body of troops to defend the sovereignty of the State of 
New York against the national government. The hopes 
of the Daily News were apparently revived by the Gov- 
ernor's action. The News said : 

Our State sovereignty has been insulted and assailed so often 
with impunity, that most of our citizens had given up all hope 
of protection from the State Executive. We believe, how- 
ever, that Governor Seymour has finally become impressed 
with a sense of the necessity for his official interference in 
behalf of the interests of the Commonwealth. 3 

One of Seymour's brigadiers, John A. Green, once chairman 
of the Breckinridge State Committee and a notorious Cop- 
perhead, issued a general order in response to the Gover- 
nor's call for militia, in which he said : 

In addition to the dangers of invasion from without and of 
popular discontents at home, we have been warned by recent 
events of the still greater danger of arbitrary encroachments 
upon our liberties as citizens. The laws of New York have 
already been deliberately set at defiance. Men have been in- 

1 Herald, July 13. 

2 Printed in the Herald, July 14. 

3 New York News, quoted by the Tribune, July 14. 



613] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 413 

carcerated without warrant of law ; their property seized ; the 
freedom of the press has been unlawfully restrained by the 
armed hand; . . . We must be prepared for all emergencies 
while there is yet time. 1 

In the end, New York's quota was not sent to the front in 
time to be of service. A dispute arose between Seymour 
and the war department as to whether the men forwarded 
in response to this call would be liable to the coming draft ; 
and the Governor, not liking the decision made at Wash- 
ington, withheld the troops. 2 

The new draft in the autumn of 1864 caused a recur- 
rence of seditious editorials in the Copperhead press, 3 and 
still worse, more friction between the war department and 
Seymour. It was the same old difference over the en- 
rolment and the quotas. 4 One thing which the Governor 
emphasized was coming to be appreciated by adherents of 
the administration too, and that was the burden of taxation 
caused by the excessive quotas. 5 Chairman Blunt of the New 
York County Volunteer Committee, late Union candidate 
for mayor, and ex-Mayor Opdyke agreed that the enrol- 
ment in New York City was very imperfect and that the 

1 Tribune, July 14, quoting the Syracuse Courier. 

2 Herald, July 26, 28, 29; Tribune, July 29; confirmation of this in 
the opinion of the Solicitor of the War Department, printed in the 
Tribune, Aug. 5; the Annual Report of the Adjutant General of the 
State of New York 1865, i, p. 202 states that only two regiments of 
the National Guard were mustered at this time into the service of the 
United States for the term of one hundred days, for duty in the field ; 
they numbered in all 994. 

3 E. g. New York Neivs of August 12th, quoted by the Tribune, 
Aug. 13. 

4 Letter of Seymour to Stanton, printed in the Herald, Aug. 7 ; letter 
of Provost Marshal General Fry to Stanton, printed in the Tribune, 
Aug. 19. 

5 Letter of Seymour to Stanton, Herald, Aug. 7. 



4 i4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [614 

demands made upon it were consequently disproportionate. 1 
These gentlemen were both radical Unionists. The New 
York County Union Central Committee, composed of Sew- 
ard adherents, sent a delegation to Washington to en- 
deavor to have New York credited with the men enlisted 
as sailors and marines. 2 The folly of the Democrats in 
denouncing the three-hundred-dollar exemption clause now 
began to be felt. That provision had been repealed, and 
hence the price of substitutes rose enormously. 3 The war 
department rejected the proposal to appoint a commis- 
sion to adjust quotas, similar to that granted in the pre- 
vious year, on the ground that the law did not permit 
such an act. 4 Yet, in the end, New York City and Brook- 
lyn wholly escaped this draft. Supervisor Blunt with great 
labor compiled a list of the naval enlistments from New 
York since 1861, numbering 25,908, for which no allow- 
ance had been made. The government allowed this 
claim. New York City was credited with about 18,000 
men, Brooklyn with about 6,000, and the rest of the State 
with the remainder. Thus New York City's quota was 
filled. 5 Possibly the administration accepted this way out 
of a situation which involved important political difficulties. 6 
We have seen that the New York delegation to the 

1 Letter of Blunt to Fry, printed in the Herald, Aug. 10; remarks of 
Opdyke at a Chamber of Commerce meeting, Herald, Sept. 2. 

2 Tribune, Aug. 25. 

3 Herald, Aug. 22. 

4 Letter of Seymour to Stanton, printed in the Herald, Aug. 7 ; 
Stanton's reply, printed i n the Tribune, Aug. 15. 

5 Herald, Sept. 5, 10 ; letter of Blunt to Seymour and Townsend, 
printed in the Herald, Sept. I. 

6 Under date of August nth, Seward wrote to his wife: "Very many 
loyal men counsel us to yield the draft, through fear of civil war at 
the North." — F. W. Seward's Seward at Washington, iii, p. 239. 



615] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 415 

Democratic National Convention of 1864 was noteworthy 
in that Tammany Hall was without representation in it. 
At the ensuing state convention, which met at Albany on 
September 14th, the Wigwam leaders resumed their seats 
in the councils of the Democracy. The advantages to the 
Regency from a divide et impera policy were self-evident; 
and on the other hand, though the charges made against the 
Tammany managers of being place barterers and of form- 
ing a close corporation were not without truth, yet it was 
manifest that mushroom rival organizations were increas- 
ing so rapidly among the Democrats of the metropolis that 
the party was being seriously weakened. Accordingly, 
there being no less than six sets of contestants from New 
York City, the committee on credentials reported a reso- 
lution acknowledging Tammany Hall as the regular Demo- 
cratic organization and the Tammany delegates as the regu- 
larly elected ones, awarding them nine votes — more than 
half of those cast by New York County — and admitting the 
other delegations with one or two votes apiece. This con- 
cession was not satisfactory to Tammany's opponents ; con- 
sequently the McKeon, the old Mozart, the new Mozart, and 
one of the German delegations withdrew when the resolu- 
tion of the committee was adopted. Thus, the field was 
left practically to Tammany. 1 

Not only was Fernando Wood powerless, but his entrance 
upon the convention floor was greeted with hisses. 2 Never- 
theless, the applause which the speech of the temporary 
chairman, Marshall B. Champlain, met with showed to 
what an extent the New York Democracy had pro- 
gressed toward Wood's ideas. 3 After the settlement of the 

1 Herald, Sept. 16; Argus, Sept. 16. 

2 Herald, Sept. 15. 

3 Champlain said in part : " There is a deep conviction pervading the 



4I 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [616 

New York City contest, the convention proceeded peace- 
ably. The report of the committee on electors, naming 
William Kelly of Dutchess and Washington Hunt of 
Niagara for electors at large, was accepted without dissent. 1 
The adoption by acclamation of the report of the committee 
on resolutions followed. The platform was equivocal in 
character. After endorsing McClellan and Pendleton, it de- 
clared, in an attempt to harmonize opposite ideas, that " the 
patriotic principles declared by the National Democratic 
Convention, as nobly and eloquently expounded by its can- 
didate for the Presidency, in his recent letter of acceptance, 
embody a line of policy upon which alone the American 
people can restore the Union." Again, the platform faced 
both ways when in the same resolution it approved Mc- 
Clellan's pledge that he would, if elected, " exhaust all the 
resources of statesmanship to secure peace, reestablish the 
Union, and guarantee for the future the rights of every 
State," and coupled this endorsement with the Jacksonian 
declaration that " the Union must be maintained at all 
hazards." Other resolutions affirmed that the Democratic 
party of New York State was " unalterably opposed to the 
rebellion," denounced at length the administration of Abra- 

hearts of the people that the administration in power is incapable of 
restoring the Union or saving the country. A great and confiding 
people have poured out their blood like water and given their treasure 
without stint. . . . Yet, for the want of wisdom and ability to turn 
these achievements [of the army and navy] to the pacification of the 
country, they are lost. . . . We must cooperate, then, with the great 
conservative party of the nation to sweep away the barrier and throw 
the doors wide open, for the States at the South to return to their 
allegiance to the Union, with all their rights under the constitution, 
as the first step towards peace and concord." True, the speaker in- 
sisted upon the preservation of the Union — but not by war, if it could 
not be saved otherwise (Herald, Sept. 15; Argus, Sept. 15). 
1 Herald, Aug. 16; Argus, Sept. 16. 



617] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 4^7 

ham Lincoln, and thanked the soldiers and sailors. Lastly, 
it was resolved that to Governor Seymour 

the gratitude of the democracy is ever due. They can never 
forget that it was he who, in the midst of our disasters and in 
the face of an overbearing adversary, was foremost in uplift- 
ing the banner of constitutional liberty, which he has since 
borne unsullied through every battle. That it was he who 
by his wisdom arrested public discord, by his firmness re- 
pelled aggressions upon State rights and personal liberty, and 
by the purity of his public life and the elevation of his pur- 
poses, exhibited, in the midst of general corruption and fac- 
tiousness, the highest qualities of a statesman and a patriot. 1 

The last resolution was hailed with enthusiasm. It was 
then that the surprise of the occasion occurred. Before 
the convention met, it had been announced by the Gov- 
ernor's friends that he would not accept a renomination. 2 
While there was no doubt that the majority of the dele- 
gates would have favored Seymour being named again but 
for his positive stand against such action. 3 the result was 
that those most frequently mentioned for the head of the 
ticket by the gathering politicians were Judge William F. 
Allen, Judge Amasa J. Parker, and William Kelly of 
Dutchess. 4 The resolution quoted above, however, up- 
set the previous calculations. A delegate moved that Hora- 
tio Seymour be nominated for governor by acclamation. 
This proposal took the convention by storm, the motion 
being carried with cheers. Another delegate thereupon an- 
nounced that he was authorized to say that Governor Sey- 

1 Herald, Sept. 16. 2 Argus, Sept. 15. 

3 Tribune, Sept. 14; Herald, Sept. 17; Argus, Sept. 15, said that a 
number of delegates had been instructed to support Seymour for 
renomination. 

* Herald, Sept. 14. 



4 i8 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [618 

mour positively declined a renomination and begged leave 
to withdraw his name. The cries of the convention mem- 
bers showed that they would not hear of this. Mr. South- 
worth of Oneida — Seymour's county — then said that in 
company with the other Oneida delegates, he had called 
upon the Governor within the preceding hour, and that 
Seymour absolutely refused to run again. The Seymour 
enthusiasm, however, was not to be stemmed. A motion 
that a committee be appointed to wait upon the Governor 
and notify him of his nomination was carried. 

This committee in due time reported that Seymour 
thought that in view of his impaired health and the demands 
of his private business, the party ought not to press a nomi- 
nation upon him, and that therefore he asked the convention 
to designate some one else; but if the convention insisted 
upon his being the candidate, he " did not feel at liberty at 
this hour of our country's peril " to forbid the use of his 
name. These last words settled the matter, and Seymour 
was declared the nominee. 1 The remaining nominations, in- 
cluding that of David G. Floyd Jones for lieutenant-gover- 
nor, were then made by acclamation. 2 Those who disliked 
Seymour declared that the whole affair was a prearranged 
trick, a nomination ostensibly merely complimentary but se- 
cretly intended to be accepted. 3 It may have been a strata- 
gem on the part of a few delegates, 4 but there is no evidence 

1 Herald, Sept. 16; Argus, Sept. 16. The Argus report differs as to 
the reply of Seymour. The Argus gives it thus: "But, added Mr. 
Farnwell, he [Seymour] did not say he would not run." 

2 Herald, Sept. 16 ; Argus, Sept. 16. 

3 Herald, Sept. 16. An editorial in the same paper of September 17th 
said: "He [Seymour] tried to get the nomination at Chicago by the 
same tricky means he has secured it at Albany." See also Tribune 
editorial, Sept. 19. 

4 Even before the nomination, the Herald of September 14th contained 
in a dispatch dated the 13th the following: "There is some talk of 



619] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 419 

or likelihood that it was artfully planned by the Regency or 
by the Governor. 1 However, as a correspondent well said, 
" Seymour's worst failing is that he never says directly yes 
or no." 

The campaign in New York opened with the usual rati- 
fication meetings directly after the nominations of Lincoln 
and Fremont. 2 The alarming apathy in the Union ranks 
during July and August was shown by the absence of de- 
monstrations of size. Near the end of the latter month, 
Raymond wrote from New York to Lincoln : " This State, 
according to the best information I can get, would go 
50,000 against us to-morrow ;" 8 and at the same time Weed 
in a letter to Seward pronounced Lincoln's election an im- 
possibility, declaring that no one in New York doubted the 
result. 4 Raymond was so despondent that he was ready 
to steal the Democratic fire — to send commissioners to 
Richmond to treat for peace on the basis of the Union. 
Congressman Sedgwick, writing from Syracuse, despaired 

giving Governor Seymour a complimentary vote by nominating him 
with the understanding that he will decline in a speech to the Con- 
vention. Some opposition is manifested to this plan under the idea 
that the move is only a trick to place Seymour in the field again; 
but this is met by those who pretend to speak the Governor's views 
with the positive declaration that Governor Seymour will not accept 
. . . upon any contingency." 

1 The Herald special correspondent attributed the nomination to the 
machinations of John A. Green. " Richmond acknowledges the de- 
feat and declared to Green that it was ' damned well done.' " 

2 Herald, June 10, 14, 16, 28 ; Tribune, July 6. 

3 Nioolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 218. 

4 Ibid., ix, p. 251. At the same time, J. M. Forbes in a letter to Gus- 
tavus V. Fox reported Weed as desperate and Raymond as giving 
intimations which showed that he was ready to make peace (Hughes' 
Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, ii, p. 102). Swett 
wrote to his wife, September 8th, about the alarming depression in 
New York (Tarbell's Lincoln, ii, p. 202). 



4 20 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [620 

of Lincoln's reelection. 1 A.s is well known, prominent radi- 
cals at a meeting in New York City began operations to 
bring about Lincoln's withdrawal and another nomination, 
continuing these efforts from mid-August to the latter part 
of September. Greeley, Godwin, David Dudley Field,. 
Tilton, Opdyke, and Noyes were among the New Yorkers 
who took part in this movement. A call for a convention to 
meet at Cincinnati was privately circulated ; letters of inquiry 
were written to Unionists of other states; and Greeley for 
the Tribune, Parke Godwin for the Post, and Tilton for the 
Independent sent a similar missive to the governors of 
loyal states. While these steps were aided by the sym- 
pathy and in some cases by the participation of prominent 
men outside of New York, yet the attempts to feel the party 
pulse failed to show that another nomination for the presi- 
dency would meet with proper support. 2 

After the Chicago convention, the political situation in 
New York was stirred up; and from September on, very 
large meetings with abundant enthusiasm on both sides were 
reported from all over the State. McClellan's nomination 
was received with joy by the great majority of New York 
Democrats. In New York City a large ratification meet- 
ing under Tammany's auspices was held in City Hall Park 
immediately upon the arrival of reliable news of the action 
of the convention; 3 Tammany Hall was brilliantly illumin- 
ated and decorated ; while along the East and North Rivers, 
bonfires around which crowds gathered were lighted. 4 In 

1 Hughes' Letters dnd Recollections of John Murray Forbes, ii, p. 
101. 

2 New York Sun, June 30, 1889; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, 
ix, p. 366; letter of Swett, Tarbell's Lincoln, ii, p. 202; Pearson's 
Andrew, ii, pp. 159, 160; Linn's Greeley, p. 202. 

a Herald, Sept. 1. 4 Ibid. 



62 1 ] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 421 

Albany two salutes of two hundred guns each were fired, 
a procession formed, fireworks set off, and a meeting held 
on the steps of the Capitol. Similar demonstrations took 
place at Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Ogdensburg, Buffalo, 
Poughkeepsie, Kingston, Lockport, Troy, and many smaller 
places in the State. 1 All this had a reactive effect upon Mc- 
Clellan's opponents. The Chicago resolutions especially 
braced up the Unionists. Fremont withdrew, and soon 
both the radicals and their journals heartily supported 
Lincoln. Thereafter, with the exception of a very vicious 
attack upon Lincoln delivered by Wendell Phillips before 
a great Cooper Institute audience a week before the elec- 
tion, 2 there were no discordant voices in the Union ranks 
in New York State. 

On the other hand, a large number of Democrats felt 
that the peace plank adopted at Chicago was a great handi- 
cap. The Herald day after day in leading editorials urged 
McClellan to rebuke the " disloyal platform." 3 Hence the 
General's letter of acceptance 4 was received with much satis- 
faction by the major portion of the party in this State. 
The World thus expressed their sentiments: 

Thank God for a purified, regenerated, disenthralled, Demo- 
cratic party! Thank God that every burden is lifted from its 
back, every impediment from its victorious path ! The men 
who have been the curse of the party have gone out of the 
party. Close up the ranks ! . . . Now we go into the Novem- 
ber fight without a flaw in our armor. . . . 5 

1 Herald, Sept. i ; Argus, Sept. 2. 

2 Herald, Oct. 27. 

3 E. g. Sept. 3, 4. 

* For McClellan's letter, see the Annual Cyclopcedia for 1864, p. 794. 
5 New York World, Sept. 12. 



422 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [622 

The letter, however, also provoked a troublesome minority. 
The Daily News said : 

The States Rights doctrine that demands every true and faith- 
ful Democrat raise his voice against a war for the subjugation 
of sovereign States, is recognized practically in the enuncia- 
tion of principles laid down by the Chicago Convention ; but is, 
on the other hand, directly repudiated in General McClellan's 
avowal of his determination, if elected, to compel the sov- 
ereignties of the South to submit to his will by force of arms. 
The man nominated to represent its principles is therefore no 
longer the nominee of the Chicago Convention. ... he has 
therefore no claim on the support of the Democracy as such. 
General McClellan's voice is for war. Principle, feeling, con- 
sistency, every suggestion of patriotism, statesmanship, and 
self-respect forbid us, therefore, from giving him our support. 1 

The News further declared that the Democrats " must seek 
a candidate who will stand upon their platform;" and to 
that end, it suggested that the Chicago convention be called 
together again. 2 About the same time a conference of 
peace men was held at the St. Nicholas Hotel in New York 
City. A resolution to hold a convention at Cincinnati was 
passed ; 3 but upon unfavorable indications as to support 
from Ohio, the resolution was rescinded. 4 Ben Wood 
maintained his hostility to McClellan. Smaller peace pap- 
ers yielded. The size of the Democratic vote in New York 
State shows that the threatened split in the Democratic 
ranks — if indeed, the Wood followers were strong enough 
to bring about such a condition — did not occur. The vari- 

1 New York News, quoted by the Tribune, Sept. 13. 

2 New York News, quoted by the Herald, Sept. II. 

3 Herald, Sept. 15; Tribune, Sept. 15; letter of Alexander Long of 
Ohio, printed in the Tribune, Oct. 10. 

4 Letter of Long, Tribune, Oct. 10. 



623] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 423 

ous factions in New York City, however they differed in 
local nominations, united in hearty support of the presiden- 
tial and state tickets. 1 

Most potent, here as elsewhere, in changing the tide 
in favor of the Unionists were the successes of the army 
and navy during the autumn. Even Governor Seymour 
was roused by the occupation of Atlanta and by Farragut's 
achievement at Mobile to order flags to be displayed from 
all public buildings and one hundred guns to be fired ; 2 
while the New York City Common Council, both branches 
of which were Democratic, took similar action. 3 Both 
Unionists and Democrats rejoiced from patriotic motives. 
But Unionists might well be doubly jubilant, as the effect of 
the victories on the prospects of the Chicago ticket was at 
once realized. Then came the October elections with re- 
sults most encouraging for Lincoln. 

Fire upon the Democrats was opened from another 
quarter, the War Democrats. At the end of October, there 
was issued a call for a convention and mass-meeting of the 
Democracy opposed to the Chicago platform, to meet at 
Cooper Institute on November 1st. This document was 
honored with such signers as John A. Dix, Edwards 
Pierrepont, A. T. Stewart, Peter Cooper, Robert B. Roose- 
velt, and Moses Taylor ; it was also signed by committees in 
behalf of the State Committee of the War Democracy of 

1 Thus the great McClellan demonstration of September 17th was 
held under the auspices of a committee in which were represented 
the Constitutional Union General Committee, the Mozart Hall Gen- 
eral Committee (Fairchild, chairman), the other Mozart Hall General 
Committee (Ray, chairman), the New York Democratic Committee 
(the McKeon organization), the McClellan Union Executive Com- 
mittee, the Democratic Union Association, two German Democratic 
committees, and the Tammany Hall General Committee (advertise- 
ment in the Herald, Sept. 11). See also Herald, Oct. 29. 

2 Tribune, Sept. 7; Argus, Sept. 7. 8 Tribune, Oct. 1. 



4 2 4 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [624 

New York State and the War Democratic General Com- 
mittee of the City of New York, and by a number of gen- 
tlemen from other states. 1 This convention and mass-meet- 
ing were duly held, the latter crowding Cooper Institute to 
excess and calling forth great enthusiasm. 2 A few days 
later, a similar demonstration by War Democrats was held 
in Brooklyn. 3 

There was very little mention of Wide Awake clubs in 
New York State during the campaign of 1864. Instead, 
there were War Eagles, Lincoln and Johnson Associations, 
and Union Associations. 4 Immediately preceding the elec- 
tion, a large Democratic torchlight procession in New York 
City was reviewed by General McClellan from the Fifth 
Avenue Hotel; but he made no speech. 5 Earlier, Pendle- 
ton was serenaded and addressed the gathering. 6 Neither 
of the Union candidates spoke in New York State. How- 
ever, as might have been expected from the imposing lists of 
speakers in this State during the preceding off years, very 
many distinguished men addressed New York Union cam- 
paign meetings in 1864, not only in the cities but also in the 
towns and large villages. On the whole, the Democratic 
array was far less notable. Governor Seymour especially 
bore a great part of the burden, speaking almost daily 
from the middle of October down to the election and from 
one end of the State to the other. 7 

1 Printed in the Herald, Nov. 1. 

2 Herald, Nov. 2. 3 Herald, Nov. 6. 

4 Under date of September 22nd, the Tribune has the first mention of 
a Wide Awake club during the campaign. See on this point, ad- 
vertisement in the Tribune of Nov. 2 ; account of Brooklyn torchlight 
parade in Tribune, Nov. 1 ; Herald, Nov. 5. 

5 Herald, Nov. 6 ; Tribune, Nov. 7. 

6 Herald, Oct. 25 ; Tribune, Oct. 25. 

7 See lists of speakers in the Argus during October; also editorial, 
Nov. 21. 



625] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 425 

In New York State, the canvass of 1864 was largely a 
continuation and a culmination of the three previous con- 
tests. The Democrats again claimed to be the upholders 
of the constitution ; they still talked of the perversion of the 
war by their opponents; they again assailed the arbitrary 
actions and usurpations of the government, the corrup- 
tion and extravagance at Washington, the fatuity of con- 
fiscation, forcible emancipation, and a war of subjugation. 
Increased attention was now given to the national debt and 
to the depreciated paper money, and the calamities impend- 
ing therefrom were vividly described. 1 A special appeal was 
made to the taxpayer. " Half a Million Dollars a Week ! 
Something for Tax Payers to Consider!" was the heading 
of an Argus editorial in which was estimated the cost of 
the support of " pauperized negroes by the administration." z 
The increased price of commodities was thus set forth by 
the same journal : 

The laboring classes were promised great blessings under the 
reign of Lincoln. The result is a cheerful one. They can buy 
Common sheeting at 75 cts. a yd. Calico, 45 cents. 
Sugar, 33 cents. Molasses, $1.25. 

Tea, $2. Coffee, 70 cents. 

Butter, 55 to 60 cents. Potatoes, $2 a bush. 

Pork, 25 cents per lb. Boots, $7.50 a pair. 

Pepper and spices, $1 per lb. Thread, 20c. a spool, and 

almost every other article in the same ratio. If he [Lincoln] 
is reelected, we suppose they will be double the above prices. 
Let every poor man hurrah for Lincoln ! 3 

1 Unionists answered this by declaring that the Democrats exagger- 
ated and by pointing to the enormous resources of the North. 

2 Argus, Sept. 21. 

3 Argus, Sept. 23; similar editorial paragraph on "Lincoln prices," 
Argus, Nov. 8. 



426 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [626 

An Argus article was entitled : "Albany County Debt ! 
Taxes ! Taxes ! Taxes ! More than half the value of the 
county and city absorbed. Can we afford to prosecute an 
' Abolition War!' " l Democrats also made use of the im- 
pending draft. . Future calls were predicted, along with 
further debt and taxation necessitated by such demands. 2 
The administration had promised since the beginning of the 
war, said the Argus, that each call for troops would be the 
last ; in order to keep the Federal forces in the field up to 
their strength at the time, 800,000 men would have to be 
furnished during the next year; and the conclusion was 
drawn that more conscriptions would come. " A vote for 
Lincoln is a vote for more drafts." 3 

The Unionists, on the other hand, once more appealed to 
the loyalty of the people ; they again claimed a non-partisan 
character; the leaders of their adversaries were repeatedly 
denounced as traitors or as having disloyal leanings. 
Voters were impressed with the danger of changing the 
government at such a time. They were exhorted not to 
reestablish the rebels in power. They were urged to see 
that there was no firing upon the rear of the army. The 
Democracy at Chicago was coupled with the Democracy 
at Richmond. It was declared that McClellan's nomin- 
ation was hailed with cheers by the rebel armies and had 
caused an advance of the rebel loan; that his nomination 
was received with approval by rebel newspapers and by the 
hostile foreign press; that the result of the election would 
influence the attitude of England and of France toward this 
country; that Democratic success was the only hope of the 

1 Argus, Nov. 8. Similar editorials or editorial articles in the same 
paper, Oct. 5, 6, 7, Nov. 3, 5. 
3 Argus, Sept. 30, Nov. 8. 
3 Argus, Oct. 25. 



627] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 427 

rebels and rebel victories the only hope of the Democratic 
party; and that McClellan, if elected, would be a tool in 
the hands of traitorous leaders like the Woods and Val- 
landigham. 

Seymour's administration of the state government was 
again an issue, 1 though not as prominent as the year be- 
fore. Fenton, on the other hand, was assailed because of 
his abolition record and for voting against the compromise 
amendments to the constitution in 1861. 2 Slavery and free 
labor were, of course, discussed; but some Unionist speak- 
ers evidently avoided that topic, for Theodore Tilton ex- 
pressed his regret that so many voices speaking for the 
Union cause were silent on the question of slavery. 3 There 
were many, however, like Schurz, Greeley, Bryant, Field, 
Beecher, Sumner, and Andrew, who addressed New York 
audiences and who were not afraid of the subject. The 
Arguelles case, 4 Lincoln's ten per cent plan of reconstruc- 
tion, his employment of negro troops, and especially his 
" To whom it may concern " letter, laying down the aboli- 
tion of slavery together with the restoration of the Union 
as conditions of peace, 5 were new points of attack by the 

1 E. g. speech by Eliott F. Shepard (Tribune, Oct. 10) ; by Tremain 
(Tribune, Oct. 21); by Busteed (Tribune, Oct. 27); Albany Evening 
Journal editorial, Sept. 9. Defense of Seymour, Argus, Nov. 5. 

2 Argus, Sept. 20, 22, Oct. 11, 13. 

3 Tribune, Oct. 12. 

4 For details ot this incident, see Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lin- 
coln, ix, p. 44 et seq. 

5 The Argus reprinted the letter under the heading, " Lincoln's Plat- 
form." Weed felt that this argument was a telling one against 
Lincoln (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 251). So too did 
Raymond, ibid., ix, p. 218. The Albany Evening Journal devoted many 
editorials to showing that the abolition of slavery was not a condition 
of peace. Seward answered the Democrats by inquiring, " When and 
where have the insurgents offered him [Lincoln] peace on the basis 



4 28 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [628 

Democrats. Again, McClellan's record and the adminis- 
tration's treatment of him had been an issue in the state 
election of 1862; more attention was now given to this 
topic. " Two years of war," said Henry Ward Beecher, 
" and we have conquered half the rebel territory, hold the 
keys of the whole, and have nearly destroyed the military 
strength of the Rebellion in the field. All this in two years 
of war." " Four years you mean," said a bystander. 
" No," responded Mr. Beecher, " I said two years of war. 
In the first two, General McClellan was in command." * 
At a Cooper Institute mass-meeting of Unionists, a promi- 
nent feature was a large log, labeled " McClellan orator 
— recently from Manassas Junction, — of the Quaker or- 
der." 2 Because of McClellan's letter of acceptance, Union- 
ists attacked him as trying to stand upon both a war and a 
peace platform. Pendleton's congressional record was 
warmly assailed. On the other hand, Democratic orators 
found a favorite theme in contrasting McClellan's achieve- 
ments with those of his successors to ^he disadvantage of 
the latter. 

Of course, the Chicago platform was the chief issue of 
the campaign. The Democrats claimed that they and they 
alone could reestablish peace and the Union. The people 
" were deeply concerned," said Seymour, 

to find that after three years of bloody struggle so little prog- 
ress had been made in restoring peace. ... It is not only our 
right but our duty to inquire why it is, after we have expended 

of the integrity of the Union?" {Herald, Sept. 7). Greeley asked, 
" Has any man ever heard an authentic declaration from the iRebel 
government or anybody representing it, that they would sooner submit 
if Slavery were restored than if it were not?" {Tribune, Sept. 13). 

1 Tribune, Oct. 25. 

2 Herald, Sept. 28; Tribune, Sept. 28. 



629] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 429 

more than $2,000,000,000, after we have given to this adminis- 
tration more than 2,000,000 men, that so far from the country 
being restored to its former condition, we are told that re- 
bellious discontent has travelled northward, . . . Why is it 
that there has been an utter failure in bringing this war to 
a successful end? It must be the fault of government or 
fault of those who have borne arms in support of our flag; 
. . . Now who will dare to say that is due to the brave men 
who have battled so fearlessly? . . . They have done enough 
if their efforts had been followed by a wise statesmanship to 
restore peace to this land. One year ago, after Gettysburg and 
Vicksburg, when we had sealed Charleston and Mobile, and 
held New Orleans, had there been wisdom enough at Wash- 
ington to avail themselves of the advantage gained by brave 
men in the battle-field, to-day we should have been living in 
peace under a restored Union. ... I charge then, here, that 
the disgraceful failure ... is due and due alone to the ad- 
ministration ; . . . * 

On the other hand, the peace plank furnished the Union- 
ists with ammunition which they used vigorously and ef- 
fectively. They pointed out the progress in subduing the 
rebellion which had already been made; they emphasized 
the suicidal impolicy of the program proposed by their 
opponents; they asserted that the adoption of such a plan 
would mean a return to the imbecile truce of Buchanan's ad- 
ministration; they insisted that an armistice could lead only 
* to the recognition of the Confederacy's independence; and 

1 Tribune, Sept. 9. The Argus presented the great issue of the cam- 
paign as peace or war (Argus, Sept. 13, Nov. 8). At the same time, it 
insisted that the Democrats would not consent to disunion (Argus, 
Sept. 12). Still later, when the tide was evidently turning against the 
Democrats, the Argus found it advisable to repudiate Vallandigham 
(Argus, Oct. 19). But, as before, nothing was said of what the 
Democrats would do if the South refused the overtures for peace 
accompanied by a restoration of the Union. 



430 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [630 

they asked, were all the treasure and all the blood already- 
spent to go for naught. What would be the fate of the 
Southern loyalists and of the enlisted negroes, should the 
Democracy accomplish the ends it sought? As in the pre- 
vious years, a strong argument advanced by Unionist speak- 
ers was the question whether the Confederates, in view of 
their repeated declarations to the contrary, would accept 
peace with a restoration of the Union ; and it was again de- 
clared that the war could not be ended through new compro- 
mises but only through the suppression of the rebellion by 
force. 1 The most cogent arguments for the Union ticket, 
however, were the military victories of the North during the 
autumn. Nor were the efforts of some Democrats to con- 
vince the public that the truth was being concealed and that 
in reality more reverses had been suffered 2 of avail. The 

1 The weakness of the Democratic position was illustrated by a speech 
of A. Oakey Hall, wherein he said : " Don't ask me what we will do 
when in power. Circumstances will rectify all defects and mistakes 
of Lincoln if they are controlled by any other" (Herald, Sept. 1). 

2 E. g. Samuel J. Tilden : " The reported successes of the Union arms 
lately were doubtful" (Tribune, Nov. 1) ; Charles J. Ingersoll : "the 
terrible disasters to our Union arms, which have been denominated 
victories" (Tribune, Oct. 22). "We are now rejoicing over a victory 
won over the enemy. But where? In the valley of the Shenandoah, 
almost up to the Pennsylvania line, at a point from which the enemy 
retreated nearly four years ago" (Argus, Sept. 23). "The studied 
silence of Stanton, and the systematic concealment or perversion of 
intelligence from the armies, does not wholly shut out from public view 
the dangers of the situation." The editorial then went on to quote 
the Chicago Times as showing the failure of Grant's operations on the 
James. " The position of Sherman at Atlanta," it continued, " is one 
of great danger and difficulty. In order to reinforce him . . . the 
armies west of the Mississippi have been depleted of their strength. 
The consequence is that the Confederates have overrun Louisiana, 
Arkansas and Missouri" (Argus, Oct. 18). An editorial in the same 
journal of November 5th said : " It can no longer be concealed that 
General Grant . . . has been repulsed with fearful loss. . . . Hood is 
advancing North, through Tennessee; and General Sherman's capture 



631] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 431 

names of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Farragut were 
constantly used by Unionist speakers with a certainty of 
evoking enthusiasm. 

This election, unique among our quadrennial contests in 
that it took place during a civil war, with a large absentee 
soldier vote, with numerous bodies of troops stationed at 
various points in the North, and with lurking fears of rebel 
conspiracies, was naturally not wanting in excitement. Be- 
fore the summer was over, the McClellan Minute Men of 
New York State had been accused of being connected with 
the Copperhead plots of the Northwest. This accusation 
brought forth indignant denials ; 1 but in October, Judge- 
Advocate-General Holt's report on the Knights of the 
Golden Circle and like organizations lent official weight to 
the charge. 2 However we estimate Holt's credulity to-day, 

of Atlanta is rendered a fruitless victory, . . . General Price has oc- 
cupied Missouri, and nearly all the Trans-Mississippi region is in 
the hands of the Secessionists. . . . New privateers have been launched 
upon the ocean, to afflict our commerce, and mock at our flag." 

1 " We have received a perfect flood of letters from individuals con- 
nected with the organization of Minute Men in this city denying in 
toto all connection with the Northwestern conspiracy." — Herald, Aug. 1. 

2 The report said that the McClellan Minute Guard " would seem to 
be a branch of the Order of American Knights, having substantially 
the same objects to be accomplished, . . . The ' McClellan Minute 
Guard,' as appears from a circular issued by the Chief Secretary at 
New York in March last, is organized upon a military basis ... It is 
composed of companies, one for each election district, ten of which 
constitute a ' brigade ' . . . The whole is placed under the authority of 
a ' commander-in-chief.' A strict obedience on the part of members 
to the orders of their superior is enjoined. . . . the force of the order 
... is stated to be ... in New York, about 20,000." The report was 
published in the Tribune, Oct. 17. R. F. Stevens, chief secretary of the 
McClellan Minute Guard in a letter to the editor of the World denied 
that the organization was of a secret or traitorous nature or that it 
was connected with the Order of American Knights; the Guard was, 
he declared, "an association for political work" (Letter quoted in 
McPherson's Political History of the United States during the Great 
Rebellion, p. 446). 



432 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [632 

the effect then can hardly be doubtful. It must have lent color 
in the minds of thousands of Unionists to the accusation 
so frequently expressed in the Unionist press and by Union- 
ist stump speakers that the opposition was disloyal. Holt's 
report was ridiculed by the Democrats ; 1 but in the second 
half of October they in turn waxed indignant over the 
election " outrages " on the part of their opponents in In- 
diana and in the border states. 2 As the campaign pro- 
gressed, threats of violence in case of interference with an 
untrammeled ballot became common on the part of Demo- 
cratic speakers. Ex-Judge Dean, late Democratic nominee 
for speaker of the assembly, was reported to have said at a 
Democratic ratification meeting: 

In Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware it would not be a free 
fight, and lest the same thing should be attempted here, he 
proposed that in all the wards they should form white-boy 
clubs ; and if any man came to the ballot boxes to prevent 
them casting their votes freely, let the white boys take care of 
him, put him where he belongs, hang him. 3 

At the end of October occurred the revelations of alleged 
frauds in connection with the soldiers' ballots. Both sides 
sent agents to the camps in order to procure these votes. 4 
One Ferry, New York State agent at Baltimore, as well as 
Edward Donohue and two others, Democratic voting 

1 Argus, Aug. 2, 3, Oct. 19. 

2 Argus, Oct. 20, 21, 22, 24, Nov. 3, 4. 

3 Tribune, Sept. I. Similar appeals, though not so strong, were made 
during the campaign' by Judge Comstock, Representative Chanler, 
C. J. Ingersoll, and John McKeon. 

4 Tribune, Oct. 27. A power of attorney had to be executed by the 
soldier desiring to vote. Hence the necessity of employing agents to 
visit the camps (Circular of the Union State Committee, Herald, July 
28). 



633] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 433 

agents, were arrested by the provost marshal at that city 
on the charge of impersonating officers and soldiers in the 
army of the United States, and as such forging on ballots 
and on the required accompanying affidavits the names of 
those in that service. 1 At the same time, Colonel Samuel 
North, New York State agent at Washington, as well as 
Major Levi Cohen and Edward Jones, two subordinate offi- 
cials at the state agency, were arrested on similar charges. 
The office was closed, and the soldiers' ballots ready to 
be deposited were seized. 2 Ferry pleaded guilty con- 
fessing to have signed the names of a number of soldiers 
and accusing Donohue of affixing the required officer's 
name. 3 Donohue at first denied complicity, and telegraphed 
for aid to Peter Cagger and to Sanford E. Church. 4 Later 
Donohue confessed to having signed blanks with the name 
of " C. S. Arthur, captain and aid-de-camp," but claimed 
that no offence was committed inasmuch as there was no 
officer by that name in the service of New York State or 
of the United States. 15 In the press dispatches, it was alleged 
that several dry-goods boxes of forged votes for the Demo- 
cratic national and state tickets had been forwarded to New 
York. 6 Further, the Unionists were worked up over the dis- 
covery of a letter from Donohue to General Farrell of Gov- 
ernor Seymour's staff, which read : " I send you ... a 
number of ballots for your county. I have made out a 
number from the list you sent me ... I guess you have 
enough. Fearing that you might not, I enclose envelopes 
and powers of attorney sworn to; you can fill them up for 
Columbia or any other county." 7 

1 Herald, Oct. 28. i Ibid. 

3 Ibid. * Ibid. 

6 Herald, Oct. 29. 6 Herald, Oct. 28. 

7 Herald, Oct. 29. 



434 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [634 

Of course, the Unionists sought to make the utmost party- 
capital out of this incident. The Tribune contained long 
editorials against the alleged frauds under such captions 
as " The Crime against the People," " Democratic Ballot- 
ing among the Dead Soldiers," " Call the Roll Instantly;" 
and it advocated the immediate organization throughout the 
State of " Vigilance committees, composed of men of nerve 
and familiar with their districts." 1 Beecher called the 
frauds monstrous. 2 The Union State Committee issued 
an address, 3 giving the " details of this gigantic attempt at 
fraud," and declaring that the 

men who attempted these frauds are the confidants and em- 
ployes of Governor Seymour, Peter Cagger, August Bel- 
mont, and other leaders of the Copperhead party. The in- 
formation by which they were enabled to give the names of 
soldiers and the companies and regiments to which they be- 
longed could only have been obtained from the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's office of this State, . . . The places where these papers 
were forged, and from whence they were issued, were the 
offices of the State agents appointed by Governor Seymour at 
Baltimore and Washington. The persons to whom the forged 
documents are known to have been sent are Peter Cagger and 
General Farrell. 

The Democratic press and stump speakers were indignant 
at the arrests. It was all a " Lincoln Plot." They claimed 
that the witnesses were perjured and that the stories were 

1 Tribune, Oct. 29; the Albany Evening Journal (October 29th) spoke 
of the " infamous plot " and of this " attempted pollution of the 
ballot-box and this desecration of the grave." " The crime confessed !" 
it exclaimed. " Not a loop to hang a doubt upon! To deny the fraud 
now is to be a party to it." The issue of November 1st was largely 
occupied with editorials on the frauds. 

2 Tribune, Nov. 7. 

8 Printed in the Tribune, Nov. 3. 



635] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY .435 

manufactured to prevent McClellan ballots from being cast. 
Counter charges of fraud were made and it was declared 
that unfair obstacles had been placed in the way of Demo- 
cratic agents. 1 The Argus matched the Tribune editorials 
with one headed, " The Great Crime against the Soldiers." 
It asserted that men in the army were voting by tens of thou- 
sands for McClellan and Seymour when the administration 
seized the ballots and arrested the agents ; and the voters of 
New York were urged " to vindicate the rights of the sol- 
diers and the cause of Republican government." 2 "In the his- 
tory of outrage and crime which make up the black 
chronicle of a Lincoln Administration," said another edi- 
torial, " there is no darker deed than this ! It reveals the 
terror and desperation of the Washington junto." 3 

Governor Seymour issued a proclamation appointing 
three prominent Democrats, Amasa J. Parker, William F. 
Allen, and William Kelly, commissioners on behalf of the 
State of New York to proceed to Washington, inquire into 
the facts and circumstances of the arrests and 

take such action ... as will vindicate the laws of the State 
and the rights and liberties of its citizens, to the end that . . . 
all attempts to prevent soldiers from this State in the service 
of the United States from voting, or to defraud them, or ta 
coerce their action in voting, or to detain or alter the votes 
already cast by them . . . may be exposed and punished. 4 

The commissioners, on arriving at Washington, protested 
against the jurisdiction assumed by the United States in the 
case. They obtained the seized ballots, but they failed to 

1 Argus, Oct. 29, Nov. 1, 2, 5; New York World, Oct. 29; Tribune, 
Oct. 29, 31; Herald, Oct. 30, Nov. 1 (speech of Recorder Hoffman). 

2 Argus, Oct. 29. 3 Argus, Oct. 28. 
4 Herald, Oct. 31. 



436 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [636 

secure the release of North, Cohen, and Jones, or even 
the postponement of their trial until after the election. 1 
The commissioners' report, published in the press two 
days before the election, declared that while there might 
have been irregularities, they had found no evidence that 
any frauds had been committed by any person connected 
with the New York agency. The document also contained 
a harrowing account of the treatment of the prisoners, which 
must have fed Democratic indignation against the arbitrary 
actions of the administration. 2 

Orders issued by General Dix, who commanded the De- 
partment of the East, were of a nature to add to the pre- 
vailing excitement. Under date of October 28th 3 he stated 
that he had received satisfactory information that rebel 
agents in Canada designed to send into the United States 
large numbers of refugees, deserters and enemies of the gov- 
ernment to vote at the approaching election, and that he 
was determined to guard the purity of the elective franchise 
against the threatened outrages ; every such person was to be 
arrested, provost marshals were directed to exercise all pos- 
sible vigilance, and all persons from the insurgent states were 
required forthwith to report themselves for registry. In a 
letter of October 29th, Senator Morgan wrote to Stanton 
both at the request of others and in accordance with his own 
judgment, desiring that three thousand troops be sent to 

1 Report of the New York Commission, published in the Herald, 
Nov. 5. 

2 Donohue and Ferry were convicted by a military commission and 
sentenced to imprisonrrlent for life (Tribune, Nov. 2). The trial of 
Colonel North dragged on for some time. Finally, he as well as 
Cohen and Jones were acquitted and released (Croly's Seymour and 
Blair, pp. 135, 136. Confirmed as to Colonel North by the Annual 
Cyclopedia for 1864, p. 588. An attempt to have the manuscript records 
consulted in order to corroborate the above, was unsuccessful.) 

s Printed in the Herald, Oct. 29. 



637] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 437 

New York immediately. 1 Stanton had already urged on 
Grant the advisability of such a move. 2 The troops conse- 
quently were sent, and Butler was selected for the immediate 
work in hand. 3 On November 2nd, Dix issued to all pro- 
vost marshals in his department further orders similar to 
those of October 28th ; he also directed that no military force 
be stationed at or in the vicinity of any of the polls, and that 
there be no interference whatsoever with the exercise of the 
right of suffrage, but if the civil authorities called upon 
provost marshals to aid in keeping the peace, the latter were 
authorized to do so, acting in strict subordination to the 
former. 4 

Seymour apparently was uneasy because of Dix's order. 
On November 2nd the Governor issued a proclamation, 8 
referring to " the painful and exciting doubts in the 
minds of many with regard to the free and untram- 
melled exercise of the elective franchise " ; he appealed to 
men of all parties to aid in the allayment of undue excite- 
ment and to " avoid all measures and language which tend 
to strife or disorder." " There are no well grounded 
fears," the proclamation went on, " that the rights of the 
citizens of New York will be trampled upon at the polls. 
The power of this State is ample to protect all classes in the 
free exercise of their political duties." Sheriffs and other 
officials were directed to take care that every voter should 
have a free ballot and they were especially enjoined to see 
that 

1 Letter of Morgan to Stanton in Gorham's Stanton, ii, p. 157. 

2 Letter of Stanton to Grant and Grant's reply in Gorham's Stanton, 
ii, pp. 156-7. 

3 Butler's Book, pp. 754, 757, 1097. Two regiments were sent to 
Buffalo, and one hundred men to Watervliet (Butler's Book, p. 1094). 

* Printed in the Tribune, Nov. 4. 
5 Printed in the Herald, Nov. 3. 



438 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [638 

no military or other organized forces shall be allowed to show 
themselves in the vicinity of the places where the elections are 
held, with any view of menacing or intimidating citizens in 
attending thereon. Against any such interference they must 
exercise the full force of law, and call forth, if need be, the 
power of their districts. 

The assignment of Butler to the command of the federal 
soldiers stationed in New York State increased the ire of the 
Democrats. 1 Butler also issued, on the eve of the election, 
a warning order against fraudulent voting. 2 

Besides the tense feeling produced by these pronuncia- 
mentos on each side, there were fears of rebel raids at 
Buffalo and Oswego. 3 Moreover, the press published a dis- 
patch 4 from Secretary Seward to Mayor Gunther warning 
the latter of a conspiracy to set fire to the principal cities of 
the North on election day. Finally, an attempt was made 
to force the price of gold up to 300, the idea being to asso- 
ciate the possible success of the Union ticket with higher 
prices, more paper money, and a prolongation of the war. 
To foil this plot, the Assistant Treasurer at New York City 
was authorized to sell gold, and this he did from October 
31st until just before election. 15 

The critical day passed off quietly. The federal troops, 

1 " We will not characterize as it deserves the conduct of the Ad- 
ministration in sending to New York on the eve of the election a man 
like Butler . . . his career in the army is calculated to arouse bitter 
indignation !" — Argus, Nov. 8. Some supporters of the administration, 
including Weed, doubted the expediency of sending Butler to New 
York at that time (Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 374). 

3 Printed in the Herald, Nov. 7. 

3 Tribune, Nov. 7; letter, dated Aug. 9, 1864 to Governor Seymour, 
signed by Mayor Fargo of Buffalo, Millard Fillmore and others 
(Fillmore Papers, ii, p. 429). 

4 Printed in the Herald, Nov. 4. 

5 Fessenden's Life of Fessenden, i, p. 355 ; Butler's Book, pp. 762, 
767, 1095, 1096, 1098. 



639] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 439 

while in readiness, were kept away from the polls ; * the 
sheriffs had no cause to call " upon the power of their dis- 
tricts ;" deserters and rebels, if any were at hand, were ap- 
parently frightened by the vigilance of Dix and Butler. 2 
Supporters of the administration had cause for satisfaction 
in the election of an increased number of Union congressmen 
from New York State, including Henry J. Raymond, Wil- 
liam Earl Dodge, Calvin T. Hulburd, and Roscoe Conkling. 
Unionists might well rejoice in the retirement from New 
York City's delegation of some of the principal Copperhead 
members of Congress : Fernando and Benjamin Wood, 
James Brooks, and Anson Herrick. 3 The results of the 
presidential contest, so far as New York State was con- 
cerned, were not such an endorsement of the administration 
as its adherents hoped for. Indeed, so close did the re- 
spective candidates run, that for several days after the 
election, the Argus claimed a Democratic majority in this 
State.* At the end of the month, the same journal daily 
repeated the charge that soldiers' ballots for the Democratic 
candidates were being systematically detained, and that the 
State had been carried for the administration by fraud. 5 
Although those in the federal military service voted this 
year, Lincoln won New York by less than 7,000 and Fen- 
ton by less than 9,000.* 

1 For Butler's ingenious scheme, see Butler's Book, p. 759. 

2 Tribune, Nov. 9; Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, ix, p. 374. 

3 Brooks was sworn in at the opening of the Thirty-ninth Congress, 
but was later unseated. The delegation as finally constituted showed a 
gain of six Unionists. 

4 Argus, Nov. 10, 11, 12. As late as the 12th, a leading editorial in 
that paper was headed, " The State — Mr. Fenton to be counted in." 

5 E. g. Argus, Nov. 24. The Albany Evening Journal (Nov. 19) in 
reply said that since the election, soldiers' votes had probably been 
received at almost every post office in the country; but it denied that 
these votes or even a majority of them were Democratic. 

8 Albany Evening Journal Almanac for 1865. 



44 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [640 

The astonishingly large Democratic vote was probably 
due in part to the very numerous pre-election naturalizations 
in New York City ; * and perhaps, the Tribune's accusations 
of wholesale frauds in the lower wards 2 were not un- 
founded. Nevertheless, that the administration had lost 
strength is shown by the very slight increase in the vote for 
Lincoln in 1864 over that in i860, while the Democratic 
vote for McClellan was about 60,000 more than that cast 
for the fusion electors in i860. To account for the loss, 
there are no charges of treachery in the Union camp as in 
1862. Thurlow Weed had now routed his adversaries 
from the federal patronage and worked heartily for Lin- 
coln. 3 After the collapse of the Fremont boom, the radicals 
did so too. Repeated military and naval victories for the 
North in the autumn of 1864 eliminated another factor 
which had told against Wadsworth. The apathy in the 
Unionist ranks disappeared long before the election, and 
their campaign was just as vigorous as that of the Demo- 
crats. During the preceding twelvemonth, the government 
had done nothing to provoke an upheaval of public opinion 

1 Tribune, Oct. 27 : " For the past three weeks the Superior Court 
and the Court of Common Pleas have been daily engaged in rushing 
through new voters from 9 a. m. to 3 p. m. . . . It is estimated that by 
Saturday night no less than 15,000 new voters will be added to the 
electoral strength of the City." The Tribune of November 9th esti- 
mated the number of such new voters at 25,000 to 30,000. The Herald 
of October 29th said: "There will be by the day of election from 
fifteen to twenty thousand foreigners naturalized." Some share in the 
result, perhaps, may be attributed to the large numbers of men from 
the Southern states who had become residents of New York City 
{Herald, Oct. 29). ' 

2 Tribune, Nov. 9. 

s " . . . when the Presidential campaign was commenced he [Weed] 
hired a suit of rooms at the Astor House, adjourning those occupied 
by the Republican State Committee, and personally superintended the 
affairs of that body " — Herald, Dec. 14. 



641] THE DEFEAT OF THE PEACE PARTY 441 

on the slavery question, nor had it entered upon any general 
course of arbitrary actions such as might have weakened 
the Unionist strength shown in 1863. The heavy McClel- 
lan vote, other than that due to naturalization and fraud, 
must then be attributed to the popularity of the General, 
weariness with the war, its burdens, its high prices, and its 
drafts, and lastly to the fact that many saw no reasonable 
prospect of a restoration of the Union without a change in 
the policy of the administration and hence a change in the 
administration itself. 



CONCLUSION 

During the Civil War, the administration at Washing- 
ton waged a twofold contest, political in the North — 
to secure the support of public opinion — as well as mili- 
tary in the South. Leading men of that time, both 
civilians and soldiers, frequently expressed the opinion that 
victory in the political field was of no less consequence than 
success in battle, and such assertions were not unfounded, 
since the defeat of the opposition in the elections meant 
the upholding of the administration by the people and 
state governments of the North. In few or none of our 
commonwealths was this support of more importance or 
more difficult to retain than in New York. However pleas- 
ant it might be if history could show us a united people, 
laying aside party strife and patriotically sustaining the 
government in its efforts to subdue the rebellion, the pic- 
ture, so far as New York is concerned, is true only for the 
few months following the attack upon Fort Sumter. Save 
during that period and, to a much less degree, in the early 
part of 1862, politics in New York were at a heat that 
has seldom been exceeded. This condition in the principal 
commonwealth of the Union can hardly have been without 
a very great influence on the growth of an opposition to the 
national administration in other states. 

The Civil War gave a tone to New York politics. Be- 
ginning with 1861, the political situation in this State dur- 
ing the war presents two main features, both existing in 
the shape of tendencies before that date but after it becom- 
442 [642 



643] CONCLUSION 443 

ing well marked and almost universal characteristics. In 
the first place, state politics turned exclusively on national 
questions, while administrative matters of a more local na- 
ture, such as had formerly caused political divisions, quite 
disappeared as subjects of partisan alignment. Secondly, 
the opposition to Thurlow Weed, led by Greeley, grew 
into a strong faction; the struggle between the Weed and 
Greeley adherents continually gave color to events within 
the Republican party and its successor the Union party 
within the State; and in this contest, the opposing ranks 
developed into radical and conservative wings. 

Thus, those who upheld the national administration in 
New York were not only weakened by the existence of 
a strong opposition party but also embittered by internal 
feuds. For the latter, Thurlow Weed was largely charge- 
able. Magnificent politician though he was, genuine lover 
of his country, he — whether through Seward's fault or his 
own — mistakenly reversed his former course to enter upon 
his border state policy ; and in his hatred of abolitionists, he 
at times during the war approached quite close to Demo- 
cratic ground. Weed in his worship of the god of expedi- 
ency lost a rare chance of rising to the elevation of a states- 
man. Had his influence been removed, there is little or 
nothing to show that the administration supporters in this 
State would have split into radical and conservative wings. 
At least, his evil genius was responsible for the extent of the 
division. It was, then, quite natural that Weed, Seward, 
Raymond, and their followers passed over to the side of 
Andrew Johnson in 1866, while their opponents supported 
the congressional majority. The foundation for that schism, 
so far as this State was concerned, was laid in the factions 
of war times. 

One effect of the war was the amalgamation of the old 
time " hards " and " softs " of the Democracy and the 



444 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [644 

decaying remains of former third parties. In so great a 
heat, where the appeal to unite in behalf of country was so 
urgent, one may wonder that the fusing process was not 
carried further, that partisan strife was not hushed, that all 
did not join in presenting a solid front to the South. The 
importance of this was thoroughly realized at the time. 
The degree to which the North would be weakened in com- 
parison with the unanimity in the greater part of the South 
was well understood. It was from such considerations 
that the Union party took its inception. Beginning with 
joint action by a People's State Convention and a Republi- 
can State Convention in nominating a Union state ticket in 
1 86 1, the movement progressed by the harmonious steps 
taken by administration supporters in the Legislature to a 
Republican-Union State Convention in 1862; in 1863, the 
name Republican was entirely dropped, and the party was 
spoken of under the designation Union until after the end 
of the war. Along with this change went an absorption 
of War Democrats. 

The mass of the Democrats, however, refused to go into 
the Union party. For this, the leaders and especially the 
Regency were to blame. Had their action in September, 
1 86 1, been the reverse of what it was, it is not unreasonable 
to suppose that political contention in New York might have 
been stilled until the middle of the next year if not longer. 
The soundness of this presumption is supported by the un- 
questionable fact that the majority of the Democrats of New 
York had no real love for slavery. But the influence of 
party was too strong and the vision too narrow for those 
in control of the machinery to rise so high. Thus the 
latter deliberately rejected the proffer of their oppon- 
ents to unite in sustaining the government. Instead, they 
entered the path of an opposition in the midst of a gigantic 
national struggle for life, at the same time affirming with 



645] CONCLUSION 445 

varying intensity and provisos from time to time their in- 
tention to uphold the government in suppressing the rebel- 
lion. This program was thoroughly inconsistent. To sup- 
port the war and at the same time to condemn with the most 
intemperate criticism the administration which must carry 
on the war, as well as its measures for subduing the enemy, 
was pulling in contrary directions. It was but natural that 
the New York Democracy drifted toward the position of 
the Copperheads. 

The prediction was frequently made during those times 
that because of their opposition to a government striving to 
preserve the nation, the Democrats would meet with the 
fate of the Federalists. Yet the New York Democracy 
emerged from this period as strong as it went in if not 
stronger. The comparatively moderate course which it 
pursued, however illogical, probably helped to save it.. 
Extremists like the Woods were held in check by such men 
as Richmond and Church who favored the prosecution of 
the war, and by cautious counselors like Seymour who 
saw the danger of pronouncing against it. And so the 
Democrats, claiming to be a genuine war party, won the 
election of 1862. Governor Seymour was a patriot, but not 
a statesman of the higher type. It is true that he did not 
fulfill the direst predictions of his opponents by refusing 
support to the national government. He did not resort to 
violence in protecting state rights. But he was perilously 
near to that. The harmony which prevailed between the 
state officials and those at Washington until 1863 and which 
was so necessary to bring the contest to a successful termina- 
tion, was to a great extent absent during Seymour's admin- 
istration, and that condition was not due to Lincoln or his 
assistants. The climax came with the draft riot. The 
share of the Democratic leaders and press, Seymour in- 
cluded, in arousing the fierce resistance to the act for en- 



44 6 NEW YORK STATE DURING THE CIVIL WAR [64.6 

rolling and drafting cannot be doubted, though the con- 
clusion took a different direction from what Seymour and 
all but the most sanguinary Copperheads intended. From 
the controversy over the conscription Seymour emerged the 
smaller, while Lincoln's tact and firmness gave renewed 
proof of his statesmanship. The Unionists won back the 
State, and fortified their hold by giving the ballot to the 
soldier. So great, however, were the internal dissensions in 
the party, so strongly intrenched were the Democrats in the 
local offices in the extreme southern counties, so promising 
was their outlook for controlling the spoils in the future, 
that in 1864 Lincoln carried the State by only a very small 
majority. The Unionists, or as they were soon after once 
more called, the Republicans, lost as a party in this State 
the legitimate fruits of the war; the Democrats came forth 
from it hopeful and powerful ; and New York continued to 
be a well-contested battle ground. 

At the close of the war, then, we find in New York State a 
Union party composed of the supporters of the national 
administration confronting its enemies united in the Demo- 
cratic organization. The remnants of third parties had dis- 
appeared. Moreover, the eld divisions between Douglas and 
Breckinridge followers had been healed, and no more was 
heard of " hards " and " softs." So that outside of the 
metropolis the Democracy had gained unity since i860; but 
this weakened the checks upon the power of the up-State 
leaders. Thus, while Tammany was still able to contend 
with the Regency, Mozart had been split into fragments, 
and the days when it was able to fight on a plane of equality 
with its rivals were over. At the end of the war, Dean 
Richmond's ascendency was undiminished. Seymour's in- 
fluence had greatly increased. Although Fernando Wood 
was again to sit in Congress during the ten years fol- 
lowing 1867, he had ceased to be the important factor in 



647] CONCLUSION 447 

New York politics that he was in i860. By 1865, Tweed 
and Sweeney had come to the front in Tammany. 

The strife which in i860 already showed its head in 
the Republican ranks of New York State persisted and 
grew in the successor of that party, so that the close of the 
war found the Unionists there sharply arrayed in two 
camps. These dissensions arose not merely from antago- 
nism to Weed but also from differences over the questions 
arising out of the war. By 1865 what may be termed the 
first series of such issues, in contradistinction to those re- 
lating to construction, had been settled by the course of 
events in favor of the anti-Weed faction. Weed was still 
of influence in the party, but his power had been greatly 
shaken if not eclipsed during the period here considered. 
Though Seward was as yet looked upon as the head of the 
conservatives and was very probably consulted by Weed, the 
Secretary was apparently no longer active in state politics 
at the end of the war. Raymond had grown in political 
stature. While the later prominence of Fenton and Conkiing 
had not fully appeared at the beginning of 1865, and the 
radical wing was still more or less guided by Greeley, never- 
theless in personal leadership as in political issues the way 
had been prepared for the triumph of that faction; for 
within a short time from that date Seward, Weed, and Ray- 
mond all were overthrown on the question of supporting 
President Johnson, and Fenton constructed a radical ma- 
chine which controlled the State. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 



No attempt at a complete bibliography has been made here; there is 
merely an endeavor to indicate the main groups of material on the 
subject. 

A. Newspapers. 

These constitute the principal sources of information on New York 
politics during the war. I have made use especially of the following: 
i. The Albany Argus. 

2. The Albany Evening Journal. 

3. The New York Tribune. 

4. The New York Herald. 

These four papers were among the dozen or so which had reporters 
at the sessions of the legislature. The Albany papers in particular 
published very full reports of the legislative proceedings and debates. 
Moreover, both the Argus and the Evening Journal had great influence 
with the up-State press, and probably were very widely copied. The 
two New York City papers were selected as representatives of opposite 
political faiths. The Herald, while containing more information on 
politics than the Tribune, must be used with greater caution. 

B. Public documents. 

Messages from the Governors. Edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. 
Vol. v. Albany, 1909. 

New York State Assembly Journal, 1860-1864 inclusive. Albany, 
1861-5. 

New York State Senate Journal, 1860-1864 inclusive. Albany, 
1861-5. 

Report of the Adjutant General of the State of New York for 
1864 and 1865. Albany, 1864-5. Useful for the relations of 
Seymour and the federal authorities. 

Report of the Select Committee of the Board of Aldermen ap- 
pointed to investigate the Ring Frauds. New York, 1878. 

C. Works, letters and speeches of contemporary statesmen and 

POLITICIANS. 

Belmont, August. Letters, Speeches and Addresses. New York, 

1890. 
Bigelow, John. Retrospections of an Active Life. New York, 

1909. 

448 [648 



649] BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 449 

Boutwell, George S. Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Af- 
fairs. New York, 1902. 

Buchanan, James. Works. Edited by J. B. Moore. Philadelphia, 
1908-1911. 

Chase, Salmon P. Diary and Correspondence. (American Histor- 
ical Association Report, 1902, vol. ii.) Washington, 1903. 

Cochrane, John. " The Charleston Convention." Magazine of 
American History, vol. xiv. New York, 1885. Cochrane was 
a leading member of the New York delegation. 

Dickinson, Daniel S. Speeches, Correspondence, etc. Edited by 
John R. Dickinson. New York. 1867. 

Greeley, Horace. Recollections of a Busy Life. New York, 1868. 

Lincoln, Abraham. Complete Works. Edited by John G. Nico- 
lay and John Hay. Gettysburg Edition. New York, 1905. Vol- 
ume vi is especially useful for the subject here treated. 

Schurz, Carl. Reminiscences. New York, 1907-8. Volume ii con- 
tains one or two items relating to New York political history. 

Seymour, Horatio. Public Record. By T. M. Cook and T. W. 
Knox. New York, 1868. 

Tilden, Samuel J. Letters and Literary Memorials. Edited by 
John Bigelow. New York, 1908. Volume i contains some ma- 
terial used here. However, it has astonishingly little on Tilden's 
political career during the war. 

Weed, Thurlow. Autobiography. Boston, 1884. Very useful, 
though not very full for the years 1860-1864. 

Welles, Gideon. "Diary." Atlantic Monthly, vols, ciii, civ. Boston. 
1909. 

Welles, Gideon. Lincoln and Seward. New York, 1874. 

White, Andrew D. Autobiography. New York, 1905. 

D. Biographies. 

Most of the books listed below contain very little on the subject of 
this monograph, but in some of them that little consists of source ma- 
terial in the shape of letters. 

Bancroft. Frederic. Life of William H. Seward. New York, 

1900. 
Barnes, T. W. Memoir of Thurlow Weed. Boston, 1884. 
Bigelow, John. Life of Samuel J. Tilden. New York, 1895. 
Burt, Silas W. My Memoirs of the Military History of the State 
of Neznt York during the War for the Union, 1861-1865. Albany, 
1002. 
Butler, Benjamin F. Butler's Book. Boston, 1002. Useful for the 

election of 1864 in New York. 
Cary, Edward. George William Curtis. Boston, 1894. 



450 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE [650 

Cornell, Alonzo B. Ezra Cornell. New York, 1884. 
Croly, David G. Seymour and Blair. New York, 1868. A cam- 
paign biography. 
Curtis, George Ticknor. Life of James Buchanan. New York, 

1883. 
Coleman, Mrs. Chapman. Life of John J. Crittenden. Philadel- 
phia, 1873. 
Dana, Charles A. Recollections of the Civil War. New York, 

1898. 
Dix, Morgan. Memoirs of John A. Dix. New York, 1883. 
Fessenden, Francis. Life and Public Services of William Pitt 

Fessenden. Boston, 1907. 
Field, Henry M. Life of David Dudley Field. New York, 1898. 

Except for the part played by Field at the Chicago convention, 

this book has nothing on his political career during 1860-4. 
Godwin, Parke. A Biography of William Cullen Bryant. New 

York, 1883. 
Gorham, George C. Life and Public Services of Edwin M. Stan- 
ton. Boston, 1899. 
Hart, Albert Bushnell. Salmon Portland Chase. Boston, 1899. 
Hughes, Sarah Forbes. Letters and Recollections of John Murray 

Forbes. Boston, 1899. 
Ingersoll, L. D. Life of Horace Greeley. Chicago, 1873. The 

author was a delegate to the Republican National Convention of 

i860. 
Linn, William A. Horace Greeley. New York, 1903. 
McCabe, James D., Jr. The Life and Public Services of Horatio 

Seymour . . . [and] of Francis P. Blair, Jr. New York, 1868. 

A campaign biography. 
McClure, Alexander K. Abraham Lincoln and Men of War-Times. 

Philadelphia. 1892. 
Merriam, G S. Life and Times of Samuel Bowles. New York. 

1885. 
Nicolay, John G and Hay, John. Abraliam Lincoln. A History. 

New York, 1890. Volumes vii, viii and ix are of use for the sub- 
ject here treated. 
Ogden, Rollo. Life and Letters of Edwin Lawrence Godkin. 

New York, 1907. 
Pearson, H. G. Life of John A. Andrew. Boston, 1004. 
Sanborn, Alvan F. Reminiscences of Richard Lathers. New York' 

1907. 
Schuckers, J. W. Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland 

Chase. New York, 1874. 
Warden, Robert B. An Account of the Private Life and Public 

Services of Salmon Portland Chase. Cincinnati, 1874. 



6 -j BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 45 1 

E. Histories. 

Alexander, De Alva S. Political History of the State of New 
York New York, 1906, 1909. Volumes ii and iii partly relate to 
the period here considered. They form the only account hitherto 
published. Alexander .writes in a very interesting manner and » 
excellent in his personal descriptions. He is, however, too much 
inclined to rely upon the New York Herald and at other times 
upon the recollections of Chauncey M. Depew as to what hap- 
pened between forty and fifty years ago. Very many of Alex- 
ander's pages are devoted to occurrences in the field of national 
politics, descriptions of which can be found in other histories and 
biographies. Alexander ignores the formation of the Union 
party in New York. , 

Breen, Matthew P. Thirty Years of New York Politics. New 

York, 1899. ... _ , . 

Davenport, John I. The Election and Naturalization Frauds in 

New York City. New York, 1881. 

Fish, Carl Russell. " Lincoln and the Patronage. American His- 
torical Review, vol. viii. Lancaster, 1902. 

Fry, James B. New York and the Conscription of 1863. Mew 

York, 1885. . , , Q ,, r „ 

Halstead, Murat. National Political Conventions [of 1800J. Co- 
lumbus, i860. t»«-i. M 
Lincoln, Charles Z. Constitutional History of New York. Roches- 

MyeVcustavus. History of Tammany Hall New York, 1901^ 
Read, J. Meredith. " Military Affairs of New York State in 1861. 

Magazine of American History, vol. xiv. 
Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States New York 
1893-1004. Volumes ii, iii, iv and v are of use for the subject 
here considered. 
Weeden William B. War Government, Federal and State m 
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Indutna i&i-S- 
Boston, 1006. Very unfair to Northern Democrats and espec- 
ially to Seymour. 
F. Miscellaneous. 

Albany Evening Journal Almanac, 1861-5. Albany, 1861-5. 
American Annual Encyclopaedia, 1860-4. New York 1861-5. 
Case of De Witt C. Little John against Horace Greeley. New 

York, 1861. 
Tribune Almanac, 1861-5. New York, 1861-5. 



VITA 



The author of this dissertation was born in New York 
City in 1880. After being graduated from grammar school, 
he studied at the College of the City of New York, receiving 
the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1899. He was enrolled as 
a graduate student at Columbia University during the 
years 1899-1901, and after studying under Professors 
Osgood and Seligman received the degree of Master of 
Arts in 1901. During 1902, he was a student at the sem- 
mer session of Cornell University. In 1905-7, he was 
in residence at Columbia as a candidate for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy, taking courses given by Professors 
Burgess, Dunning, Osgood, Robinson, Shepherd, and 
Sloane, and attending the seminars of Professors Dunning 
and Osgood. He taught in the elementary schools of New 
York City from 1899 to 1905 and from 1906 to T908. 
Since March, 1908, he has been a teacher of history in the 
Brooklyn Boys' High School. 

-153 






vT 





































































-V 













< ' 



\ 



